Tca/417/2014 Of Commissionr Of Income Tax v. M/S Pl Shipping & Logistics Lt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMand THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.417 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai... Appellant/Appellant-vs- M/s.P L Shipping & Logistics Ltd.,56/57 3[rd] Floor, Rajaji Salai,Chennai-600 001... Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 18.11.2013, made in I.T.A.No.1164/Mds/2013 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennaiagainst the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)V, Chennai 34 inI.T.A.No.421/2011-2012 order dated 27.02.2013 against theassessment order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle V(2) Chennai dated 30.12.2011 in PAN AACCP2294Gfor the Assessment year 2006-2007. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent :Ms.J.Sree Vidhya This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated18.11.2013, made in I.T.A.No.1164/Mds/2013 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2006-07. 2.The above appeal was admitted on 27.08.2014, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“(i) Whether under the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the expenditure incurred bythe assessee in the discontinued NVOCC business isallowable as revenue expenditure? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee haddiscontinued only one division (NVOCC) of itsbusiness and the business of freight forwardingitself did not cease to exist?(iii) Whether based on material availablebefore it, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal couldnot have come to the conclusion that NVOCC andfreight forwarding are same business and that theassessee had discontinued only one division(NVOCC) of its business and the business offreight forwarding itself did not cease to exist?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant and Ms.Sree Vidhya, learned counsel for therespondent. 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.17/2019,dated 08.08.2019 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. s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy abrTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)VChennai 34.Chennai 34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle V(2)ChennaiCompany Circle V(2)Chennai +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 72373. +1 CC to Ms.J.Sreevidya, Advocate sr 72621. T.C.A.No.417 of 2014 RJI(CO)SP(24/10/2019)