Dated: 10.12.2019 v. Delivered By Dr.vineet Kothari,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.12.2019 CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR The Commissioner of Income Tax VIChennai.Appellant Vs. Shri B.Nagi ReddyNo.56C, Dr.Lakshmanasamy SalaiK.K.Nagar, Chennai 600 078.Respondent----- Tax Case filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,''B'', Chennai, dated 08.01.2010 passed in ITA.No.1175/Mds/2009,against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal,Chennai, dated 21/04/2009 in ITA.No.68/2008-09, against theAssesment made for the year 2006-2007 in PAN.No. ,dated 29/12/2008 by Income Tax Officer, Business Circle IV(4),Chennai-34. -----For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Shivamani for Mr.S.Sridhar----- (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, ''B'' Bench, Chennai, by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in lawin deleting Administrative and other expensesattributable to one project called Neutech Indira Project, of the assessee in respect of which it hasclaimed under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act,1961, is valid?(ii]Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in deleting the addition made by theassessing officer, even though the assessing officeraction is fully justified as is in accordance withthe provisions of Section 80IB[13] read with Section80IA[10] of the Income Tax Act, 1961?" 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Tax CaseAppeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed,keeping open the substantial questions of law for determinationin an appropriate case. Sd/-Deputy Registrar(CJ Conf) // True Copy// AP Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals VIChennai-34. 2.The Income Tax Appellat Tribunal, “B” Chennai.3.The Income Tax Officer, Business Circle IV(4), Chennai-34. +1CC to S.Sridhar, Advocate, SR.No.102715.SSV(CO)CSR:23.01.2020 T.C.A.No.830/2010