Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Chennai v. M/S.kfj Gold & Diamond Pvt

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai...Appellant Vs M/s.KFJ Gold & Diamond Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-40. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 30.9.2015 made in ITA.No.2017/Mds/2014 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Chennai in ITANo.1522/2013-14 dated 19/02/2014 and against the order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle (II)(4)Chennai, PAN/GIR No. , dated 26/12/2011. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC For Respondent : Ms.E.Malini for M/s.Pass Associates Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Ms.E.Malini,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated30.9.2015 made in ITA.No. 2017/Mds/2014 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal was admitted on 02.8.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal is correct in law in holding thatthe losses from commodity trading is to beallowed to set off against the regularbusiness income of the assessee ? ii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal is correct in holding that thetransaction on commodities carried on by theassessee on MCX stock exchange during thefinancial year 2008-09 would be eligible forbeing treated as non speculation within themeaning of Section 43(5)(d), when MCX stockexchange is notified as a recognized stockonly with effect from the date ofpublication of Notification No.46/2009 dated22.5.2009 issued by the CBDT in the officialgazette ? Andiii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal is correct in not following theApex Court's decision in the case ofReliance Jute Industries Ltd. [reported in120 ITR 921 (SC)] wherein it was held thatthe amended provisions of sections come intoforce from the first day of the assessmentyear?” 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 framed 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(CCC) //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals II, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(4) Chennai. Company Circle II(4) Chennai. TCA.No.454 of 2016 KK(CO)GMY(11/10/2019)