Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34 v. M/S.neovia Logistics Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-113

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 08.7.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34...AppellantVs M/s.Neovia Logistics Services IndiaPvt. Ltd., Chennai-113....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 28.10.2016 made in ITA.No.77/Mds/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10. Against the order dt.11.9.15 made in ITA.No.502/13-14/1, NewNo.ITA 106/CIT(A)-1/2013-14 on the file of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai, for the Assessment Year 2009-10. Against the order dt.13.5.2013 made in PAN/GIR No.AACCC3949Fon the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle 1(3) Chennai for the Assessment Year 2009-10.For Appellant :Mr.Karthik Ranganathan For Respondent :M/s.King & Patridge Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and the learnedcounsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated28.10.2016 made in ITA. No.77/Mds/2016 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for the assessment year2009-10. 3. The Revenue filed this appeal by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was correct and justified ingranting deduction under Section 10A whenthere is clear violation of Section 10A(2)(ii) of the Income Tax Act ?ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal was right and justified in holdingthat the assessee is entitled to deductionunder Section 10A to the Logistics Divisionformed by splitting up or reconstruction ofan already existing business ? And iii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case and in law, theTribunal erred in disregarding the fact thatthe ultimate ownership of Logistics Divisionvests with M/s.Caterpillar Inc., USA onlywhich reconstructed its business bytransferring this Division from CCPL to theassessee and thus, the impugned order of theTribunal is perverse on facts and in law ?” 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.17/2019dated 08.8.2019 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 raised are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, 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 ) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle 1(3), Chennai.Company Circle 1(3), Chennai. Rsv(co)krd 3/9krd 3/9 TCA.No.236 of 2018