Tca/468/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.12.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case Appeal No.468 of 2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. -vs- ...Appellant M/s.Ucal Fuel Systems Ltd.,Raheja Towers, Delta Wing,Unit:705, 177, Anna Salai,Chennai – 600 002. ...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate TribunalChennai 'B' Bench, dated 21.04.2011 in ITA No.1487/Mds/2010, forthe Assessment year 2005-06. Appeal against the order passed bythe Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) - III, Chennai, dated23/06/2010 in ITA.No.380/07-08/A-III, for the Assessment Year2005-2006, against the order passed by the AdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax company Range III, Chennai - 34,dated 14.12.2007 in GIR No.AAACV0514K (33002- U) for theAssessment Year 2005-2006. For Appellant:M/s.V.PushpaFor Respondent :Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanaban JUDGMENT[Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.] This Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench, dated 21.04.2011 in ITANo.1487/Mds/2010, for the Assessment year 2005-06. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.Heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Counsel for the Revenue andMr.R.Venkata Narayanan, learned Counsel for the assessee. 3.This Appeal has been admitted on 10.11.2011, on thefollowing Substantial Question of Law: "Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the carried forward lossand unabsorbed depreciation of the eligibleunit for the earlier years could not benotionally carried forward and set off againstthe income of the said unit before working outthe deduction u/Sec.80-IA of the Act ignoringthe clear provisions of Sub-Section (5) ofSection 80-IA?” 4.We have perused the order of Assessment as well as theOrder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax and we find thatthe tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limitmentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, issued bythe Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixes the monetarylimit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter.Furthermore, the Revenue has not been able to point out anydistinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of 2018,dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursuethis Appeal in view of the low tax effect. Hence, the Appeal isdismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed forconsideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal, if at a later pointof time, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit. mrm/abr Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner, Income Tax -I, Chennai. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals - III) Chennai. Chennai. 4. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Company Range- III, Chennai - 34. Company Range- III, Chennai - 34. +1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.84139 +1cc to M/s.M. Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No.83443 T.C.A.No.468/2011 SSI(CO)KAK (07/01/2019)