Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.atlas Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd
High Court
18 Sep 2020 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.atlas Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
18 Sep 2020
Assessment year(s)
2006-07
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.atlas Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2020) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial question of law for determination in appropriatecases.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18.9.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.250 & 251 of 2015
Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant Vs.
M/s.Atlas Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd.No.173/3, Old Mahabalipuram Road,Nehru Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.
...Respondent
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 22.11.2013 made in ITANos.1307 & 1308/Mds/2013. against the Order of the Commissionerof Income Tax (Appeals III), Chennai, dated 04.02.2013 in ITATR No.6/2010-11/AIII and 7/2010-2011/AIII in the Assessment year2006-07 and 2008-2009.
against the Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcompany circle 1(1) Chennai 34 dated 23.12.2010 PA/GIRNo.AAACA7401QAX3-103 for the Assessment year 2006-2007, 2008-2009 respectively.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : No appearance.
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated22.11.2013 made in ITA Nos.1307 & 1308/Mds/2013, for theAssessment Years 2006-2007 and 2008-2009, by raising thefollowing substantial question of law:
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee was entitled todeduction u/s.10B for the Assessment Year underconsideration in respect of the old unit, merely onthe approval of the Development Commissioner, MEPZand the Customs Commissioner's approval for bondedwarehouse, which do not address issues such asshiftingofmachineryorbifurcationorreconstruction of existing business?"
2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learnedSenior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, 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.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore).
3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filedby the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial question of law for determination in appropriatecases. Copy of this order may be sent to the Assessee. Nocosts.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Balaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, 'D' Bench, Chennai-90.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-34. Chennai-34.
3. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(1), Chennai-34.
4. M/s.Atlas Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd.
No.173/3, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Nehru Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119. Nehru Street, Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.
+1cc to Mr.Ravikumar, Advocate in Sr.30687
T.C.(A) Nos.250 & 251 of 2015
MG(CO)RV(08/10/2020)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.