Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 2No v. M/S.indowind Energy Ltd, Kothari Buildings, Iv Floor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM& THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.558 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai - 600 034. ...Appellant Vs. M/s.Indowind Energy Ltd, Kothari Buildings, IV floor,114, Nungambakkam High Road,Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAA CI 1806 M ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act 1961 against the order dated 25.10.2016 made inI.T.A.No.1824/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras “B” Bench, for the assessment year 2008 - 09against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 6,Nungambakkam, Chennai-34 dated 12.02.15 in GI No/PA NoAAAC11506M in ITA No 143/CIT A 6 2008-2009 Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) 6, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600034 dated 23.01.2015 GINo/PA No AAAC11806M in ITA No 234/CIT(A) 6/2014-2015 Against the order of the Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle 11(3) Nungambakkam dated 28.03.2014 in theassessment year 2008-2009 PAN GIR No AAAC11806M. Against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Company Circle 11(3), Chennai 34 dated 30.12.2008 GI No/PANo AAAC11806M in the Assessment Year 2006-2007. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Mr.S.Sridhar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judgment We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel forthe appellant and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, accepting notice for therespondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated25.10.2016 made in I.T.A.No.1824/Mds/2015 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, for theassessment year 2008 - 09. 3. The Tax case appeal was admitted on 28.08.2018 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case and in law, the ITAT was correct inallowing the bad debt written off on account ofadvance made for the purchase of land to M/s.WiproFinance Ltd. when the assessee is not into thebusiness of real estate? and (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in allowinghigher claim of depreciation while calculating thebook profit under Section 115JB of the Act, whenthe assessee had not disclosed by way of a noteforming part of annual accounts as specified inCircular No.2/89/No.1/17-87-CI-V of the Ministry ofIndustry?” 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that theabove appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the lowtax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the saidCircular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appealbefore the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It isfurther submitted that the tax effect in this case is less thanthe 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar raja To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nungambakkam.3.The Commissioner ofIncome Tax,Company Circle-II(3),Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.Tax Case Appeal No.558 of 2018MG(CO)KKV/06/08/2020