Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai Iii v. M/S.medicorp Technologies India Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai III.... Appellant/Appellant Vs. M/s.Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.. ... Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 16.01.2009, made in ITANo.2328/Mds/2007 and this appeal preferred against theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai-34 dated 25.6.2007 made in ITA 201/2004-2005 for theAssessment Year 2002-2003 and preferred against the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle IV (2) Chennai 34dated 31.03.2004 made in P.A.No/GIR No.ME5/AAAFM1293P for theAssessment Year 2002-2003. For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajesh, for Mr.Karthik Ranganathan. For respondent : No appearance (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, dated 16.01.2009, inITA No.2328/Mds/2007, by raising the following substantialquestions of law : "(1) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that the assessee company wasentitled to depreciation under clause (ii) ofSection 32 (1) of the Income Tax Act on the non- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ compete fee paid to Medispan Limited, wronglyinterpreting the rule of ejusdem generis andconsidering the non-compete fee as of the samenature of intangible assets like know-how, patents,copyrights, trade marks and other rights of similarnature mentioned in clause (ii) of Section 32 (1) ofthe Income Tax Act ? (2) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in differing from the decisions of the co-ordinate Benches instead of referring the matter tothe President of the Tribunal to refer the issue toa Special Bench, without following the decision ofthe Madras High Court in CIT vs L.G.Ramamurthy &Ors, 110 ITR 453 (Mad) ? 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel for the Department brought to our notice theCircular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxesvide Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.50.00 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and, therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed, as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dixitTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appellate) V No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle IV (2) Chennai-34. Tax Company Circle IV (2) Chennai-34. TCA No.754 OF 2009 kj[co]srg 1/3/2019