Tax Case Appeal Nos.1021 To 1023 Of 2010 The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. >

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.1021 to 1023 of 2010The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...Appellant in all appeals VsSmt.Padma Damodaran...Respondent in all appeals APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 13.2.2009 made in ITA.Nos.822 to824/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'D' Bench respectively against the Order of theCommissioner of Income Tax/Appeals – V, Chennai in ITA.No. 217,232 and 635/MDS/2006-2007 against the assessment order of theIncome Tax Officer, Company Ward VI (i), Chennai dated16/03/2006 PAN/GIR No. AEX pp 8280M/WSI. Assessment Year 2002-03to 2004-05 For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC For Respondent:Ms.Sree Lakshmi ValliCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 13.2.2009 made in ITA.Nos.822 to 824/Mds/2008 and on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Benchrespectively for the assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in allowing the 80IB deduction on 100%profits returned as against 45% of theprofits relatable to production of HeatShrinkable Sleeve – HSS produced by theassessee, which was one of the 17 items inthe CJK ? Additional Question in TCA.No.1022 of2010 : ii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in allowing deduction under Section80IB with respect to the amounts accruedfrom the trading activity/sale of semifinished HSS to M/s.SICHEM proprietaryconcern of the assessee's wife ?CommonadditionalquestioninTCA.Nos.1022 and 1023 of 2010 : iii. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in estimating the trading profit at 5%of the total export sale and disallowingonly to that extent of 5% as against theRevenue's stand of disallowing the entiretrading profits for purpose of Section 80IBwhile dealing with the profits that relatesto sale/trading of hot melt adhesive?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. Chennai 'D' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of IncomeTax (A) – V, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Officer, Company Ward VI (i) Chennai. Company Ward VI (i) Chennai. +1cc to Mr.G.Baskar, Advocate, S.R.No. 71037+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 70541TCA.Nos.1021 to 1023 of 2010PP(CO)GN(05/11/2019)