Commissioner Of Income Tax,Corporate Circle 3, Chennai v. M/S.ttk Healthcare Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle 3, Chennai. ... Appellant/Appellant -vs- M/s.TTK Healthcare Limited,No.6, Cathedral Road,Chennai-600 006.PAN: AABCT 3312 J ... Respondent/RespondentAppeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,againsttheorderdated05.08.2016,madeinI.T.A.No.683/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II, Chennai-34 made in ITA No.103/2014-15-CIT (A)-II,dated 29.12.2015 and against the order passed by the DeputyCommisioner of Income Tax Company Circle III(2), Chennai-34,made in GIR No./PAN/ dated 20.03.2014. (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated05.08.2016, made in I.T.A.No.683/Mds/2016 on the file of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantialquestions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, Tribunal was right andjustified in holding that logo charges paid byassessee were revenue in nature even though suchpayment was continuously made for several yearsthrough which it got enduring benefit?(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case the Tribunal's findingis bad especially when as per clause 3(c) of MOU,the partner's contribution to TTK will makeavailable the goodwill of TTK Brand name and asJoint owner of the assessee company theexploitation could only be treated in the capitalnature and not revenue. (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, Tribunal was correct andjustified in deleting the addition made u/s 40A(2)towards depot service charges even though the samewas above market rate as evident from payment madeby assessee to non-related parties for similarservices? and(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, Tribunal erred in ignoringthe decision of jurisdictional High Court in CIT –vs- NEPC India Ltd. (303 ITR 271) on the sameissue?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counselassisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for theappellant – and Mr.R.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel, forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan & Ramamani, for the respondent. 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue onaccount of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Bythe said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing anappeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore.It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is lessthan the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai-34.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle, III(2), Chennai-34.+1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advcoate Sr.75147+1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocte Sr.75040T.C.A.No.63 of 2017bs[co]srg 18/11/2019