Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 4No v. M/S. Lotte India Corporation Ltd,4/169, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (Omr),Kandanchavadi Bus Stop,Perungudi Taluk, Chennai - 600 096

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.416/2017and CMP No.10331/2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai - 600 034...Appellant vs. M/s. Lotte India Corporation Ltd,4/169, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR),Kandanchavadi Bus Stop,Perungudi Taluk, Chennai - 600 096....Respondent Prayer ::- Appeal filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, dated 28.09.2016 in ITANo.525/Mds/2016, against the order of the commissioner of IncomeTax Appeals 8, Chennai, dated 28/12/2015 in ITANo.53/2013-14 inthe assessment year 2010-11. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxChennai, dated 31.03.2013 PAN/GIR No. in the assssmentyear 2010-11.For appellant: Mr.Karthik RanaganathanFor respondent : Mr.Sandeep Bagmar ORDER (Made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per theResolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges attheir respective residence and the counsel, staff of the Courtappearing from their respective residences. 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue,calling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A Bench, dated 28.09.2016,by raising the following substantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1. Whether on the facts andcircumstances of the case the AppellateTribunal is correct in law in holding thatUnabsorbed depreciation relating to theassessment year 2001-02 and assessment yearsprior thereto can be set off in subsequentyears, without any limit, as per the amendedprovision of section 32[2] of the Income TaxAct? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct indeleting the disallowance on the claim ofsetting off of brought forward unabsorbeddepreciation amounting to Rs.l,19,02,780/-pertaining to Asst Years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 ?” 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counselfor the Department brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 4. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in appropriatecases. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS I) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kpl/tar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras A Bench. 2.The Principal Commissioner of income Tax 4,121, Mahatmagandhi road,Chennai-34. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals 8,Chennai. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. T.C.A.No.415 & 416/2017 MG(CO) RMP(15/09/2020)