Principal Commissioner Of Income Taxcentral I v. M/S.orchid Healthcare Pvt. Ltd

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.265 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCentral I, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road,Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Orchid Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.,No.1, 6th Floor, Crown Court,34, Cathedral Road, Chennai - 600 034.PAN: ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 06.09.2017 made in ITA.No.1156/MDS/2017 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2012-13, against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Chennai-34 made inITA.NO.40/2015-16/CIT(A)-3, dated 31.01.2017 and against theorder of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CorporateCircle-5(1), Chennai made in PA/GIR.NO.AAACO0399K dated13/03/2015 for the Assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counselappearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/3 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated06.09.2017 made in ITA.No.1156/MDS/2017 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2012-13. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the followingsubstantial questions of law :“1.Whether the ITAT is justified in holdingthat the disallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8Dof Income Tax Rules, has to be restricted onlyto the extent of exempted income earned by theassessee, by ignoring the fact that no suchrestriction was laid in Rule 8D? 2.Whether ITAT is correct in placingreliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble MadrasHigh Court in the case of Redington (India)Ltd., in favour of its conclusion that thedisallowance u/s.14A read with Rule 8D of IncomeTax Rules, has to be restricted only to theextent of exempted income earned by theassessee, whereas the Hon'ble High Court has notexpressed any such opinion in the relied uponjudgment?" 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(CS VI) //True Copy// 2/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Chennai-34. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, Advocate sr.74185 TCA.No.265 of 2018 cp(co)nr 31/10/2019 3/3