Tca/48/2011 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. M/S Arvind Remedies Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.48 of 2011 Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs-M/s.Arvind Remedies Ltd.,No.190, P.H.Road,Chennai-600 084.... RespondentTax Case (Appeal) filed under Section 260-A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income-tax AppellateTribunalBench'C'Chennai,dated28.09.2010,inI.T.A.No.688/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2005-06. againstthe order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle1(1),Chennai,dated29.11.2007madeinPA/GIR.NO.AACCA7407Q/AX4-003 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-III, Chennai, dated10.02.2010 made in ITA.No.398/07-08/AIII. For Appellant:Mrs.R.Hemalatha,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent :Mr.A.S.Sriraman JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the orderof the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C' Chennai, dated28.09.2010, in I.T.A.No.688/Mds/2010 for the assessment year2005-06. 2. The above appeal has been admitted, on 01.03.2011, on thefollowing substantial question of law:-“Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in holding that the assessee was entitled tohigher rate of 15% depreciation on the buildingwhich was used by the assessee only for storingapparatus, equipments and tools, on the groundthat the building constituted a 'plant'?” 3. Heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for therespondent. 4. We have perused the order of assessment as well as theorder passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III andwe find that the tax effect in this appeal is lesser than thethreshold limit mentioned in Circular No.3 of 2018, dated11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, whichfixes the monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department topursue the matter. Furthermore, the Revenue has not been ableto point out any distinguishing features, by which the CircularNo.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, this Tax CaseAppeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law, framedfor consideration, is left open. No costs. The Revenue is atliberty to seek for restoration of appeal if at a later point oftime, it is found that the tax effect is above the thresholdlimit or to fall under the exceptional clauses mentioned in theCircular. abr To 1.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'C' Chennai.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-III, Chennai.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Rajkumar, Advocate, S.R.No.80606 NM(CO)CS/03/01/2019