Tca/734/2014 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.paterson Securities P Ltd

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.734 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income-tax,Chennai... Appellant-vs- M/s.Paterson Securities Private Ltd.,“Vanguard House”,48, Second Line Beach Road,Chennai-600 001... Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 13.08.2010, made in I.T.A.No.1546/Mds/2009 onthe file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B',Chennai, for the assessment year 2004-05. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)V No. 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. dated11.08.2008 ITA.No. 514/2006-07 PAN/GIR No. AAACP 5634P for theassessment year 2004-05 and against the order of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V (I) Chennai dated30/11/2006, PAN /GIR.No. Ward/Circle/Range/CompanyCircle V (i) Chennai – 34 for the Assessment Year 2004-05.For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.J.Balachander JUDGMENT This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated13.08.2010, made in I.T.A.No.1546/Mds/2009 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B', Chennai, for theassessment year 2004-05. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in allowing the claimof the assessee to deduct bad debts amounting toRs.16,99,580/- in respect of S.P.Thangaraj? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in upholding theaction of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition ofRs.48,84,400/- made on account of Section 2(22)(e)of the Income-tax Act? (iii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was rightin upholding the action of the CIT(A) in allowingthe claim of the assessee in respect of long termcapital loss amounting to Rs.48,84,400/- onaccount of transfer of shares of Paterson HoldingPvt. Ltd., who is the Director of the assesseecompany for nil consideration?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant – and Mr.J.Balachander, 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. Sd/-Assistant Registrar (CS-VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar abr https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Bench 'B', Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle VII, Chennai. Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No. 72366 T.C.A.No.734 of 2014AD(CO)GN(13/11/2019)