Rc/112/2000 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax.hyderabad v. M/S.resource Technology(P) Ltd.hyd

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH& HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAMReferred Case No. 112 of 2000 O R D E R:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram) At the instance of the Revenue, the followingquestions of law said to be arising out of the order of theTribunal dated 30.04.1998 in I.T.A. Nos.1023/Hyd/93 forthe assessment year 1989-90 are referred for the opinionof this Court. 1)Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inlaw in deducting the additional tax levied under Section143(1A) when the loss (unabsorbed depreciation) wasreduced as a result of prima facie adjustment madeunder Section 143(1) 143(1)(a)?case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inlaw in deducting the additional tax levied under Section143(1A) when the loss (unabsorbed depreciation) wasreduced as a result of prima facie adjustment madeunder Section 143(1) 143(1)(a)? 2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inholding that there was no change in the total incomewhen special provisions under Section 115(J) are appliedeven though prima facie adjustment was made whileprocessing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a)reducing the unabsorbed depreciation claimed by theassessee?case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct inholding that there was no change in the total incomewhen special provisions under Section 115(J) are appliedeven though prima facie adjustment was made whileprocessing the return of income under Section 143(1)(a)reducing the unabsorbed depreciation claimed by theassessee? During the course of arguments, we have noticedthat the tax implication in this case is about Rs.1,86,414/-. In the light of the Instruction No. 1979, dated27.03.2000 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxeswherein revised monetary limits of the tax effect havebeen prescribed, we decline to answer the proposedquestions of law inasmuch as the tax effect in the present case is below the monetary limit of Rs.2.00 lakhs. Accordingly, the Referred Case is closed. No orderas to costs. As a sequel to the closure of the case,Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this ReferredCase, shall stand closed. _________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J 23.01.2014 bcj ______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J