Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-4No v. M/S.mallika Battery Company Ltdno

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.264 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4No.121, Mahatma Gandhi RoadChennai 600 034....Appellant Vs. M/s.Mallika Battery Company LtdNo.5, 4th Street, Dr.Radhakrishnan SalaiMyalpore, Chennai 600 004.PAN AAACM23878L...Respondent Prayer:Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 15.07.2016 in ITANo.1012/Mds/2016 and against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-8, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34 dated29.01.2016, made in ITA.No. 62/2013-14 for the assessment year2008-09 and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Company Circle IV (i), Chennai dated 31.03.2013,made in PAN/GIR.No. for the assessment year 2008-2009. For Appellant : M/s.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel (Judgment of the Court was 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: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in deleting theaddition of sale proceeds of shares of M/s.NumericPower Systems Ltd., while computing the book profitsfor the purpose of Section 115 JB of the Income TaxAct? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, the Appellate Tribunal was correctand justified in holding that the assessee companyis not the owner of shares of M/s.Numeric PowerSystems Ltd., even though name of assessee appearsas owner/holder in the share certificate as well asshare register of the said company? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase and in law, ITAT is correct in holding thatassessee was holding shares of M/s.Numeric PowerSystems Ltd., in fiduciary capacity on behalf of itsdirector and whether order of the Appellate Tribunalis contrary on records and is perverse on facts?” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated thatappeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before theHigh Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. 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 not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-IV) Sub Assistant Registrar KSTTo 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Nungambakkam, Chennai -34. Nungambakkam, Chennai -34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV (i), Chennai. Company Circle IV (i), Chennai. 4.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34. No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 34. 5.The Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (IIIrd Floor), Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. Income Tax Appellant Tribunal (IIIrd Floor), Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai. T.C.(A) No.264 of 2017MR(CO)GN(16/07/2020)