Tca/532/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Ceebros Hotels P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.532 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income tax,Chennai... Appellant-vs- M/s.Ceebros Hotels P Ltd.,No.19/1, 3[rd] Cross Street,R.A.Puram, Chennai-600 028... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 15.03.2013, made in I.T.A.No.2184/Mds/2012 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennaifor the assessment year 2008-09. as against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal– III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34 made in ITA.N468/10-11/A-III dated 12/09/2012 as against the order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle – 1 (3),Chennai – 34 in GIR /PAN dated 28/12/2010 for theAssessment Year 2008-09. For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent:Mr.A.S.Sriraman,For Mr.S.Sridhar (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated15.03.2013, made in I.T.A.No.2184/Mds/2012 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for theassessment year 2008-09. 2.The Revenue has filed the above appeal raising thefollowing substantial questions of law:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe disallowance made under the head “repairs andmaintenance” are allowable? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal badespecially when the assessee itself has statedthat the repairs were in respect of restaurantcarried out after three years from thecommencement of its operation which would provethat the benefit was for longer period andtherefore the expenditure was capital in natureand not revenue? (iii) Whether the finding of the Tribunal isperverse especially when the CIT(A) had clearlystated that after verifying the bills found thatnew assets have been created which are of enduringnature and therefore capital?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant – and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel forMr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent. 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. //True Copy// abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals – III, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle -1(3), Chennai-34. Chennai-34. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 72371 +1cc to Mr.S.Sridhar, Advocate, S.R.No. 72498 T.C.A.No.532 of 2014SPD(CO)GN(13/11/2019)