Tca/972/2014 Of Commissioiner Income Tax v. M/S Pradeep Dadha Group

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.972 of 2014 Commissioner of Income Tax,121, M.G.Road, Chennai... Appellant/Appellant-vs- M/s.Pradeep Dadha Group Companies Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly known as TDP Technologies Pvt. Ltd.)250, Lloyds Road, Royapettah,Chennai-600 014.PAN: AAB CT 5448 B.. Respondent/Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961,against the order dated 27.06.2014, on the file of the Income-taxAppellateTribunal'C'Bench,Chennai,inI.T.A.No.135/Mds/2013 for the assessment year 2009-10 againstthe order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) Trichy, dated16.10.2012 made in I.T.A.No.525/11-12(A)-III and against theorder of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle III(2) Chennai 600 034 dated 29.12.2011 made in G.I.R.No./PAN AABC75448B For Appellant:Mr.T.Ravikumar,Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent :Mr.A.S.Baalajifor Mr.A.Ramesh KumarJUDGMENT(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the appellant/Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income-tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated27.06.2014, passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C'Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.135/Mds/2013 for the assessment year2009-10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The above appeal was admitted on 14.12.2015, on thefollowing substantial questions of law:-“(i) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas correct in deleting the disallowance madeunder Section 40(a)(ia) on the payments made tonon-resident agents which are in the nature ofTechnical Services and not mere commission?(ii) Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was correct in holding that thesales affairs of the assessee company outsideIndia by means of engaging an agent is not aTechnical Services and would not fall underExplanation 2 to Section 9(1)(vii)?” 3.Heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant and Mr.A.S.Balaji, learned counsel for Mr.A.RameshKumar, 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. Assistant Registrar abrToTo 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-III(2), Chennai-600 034. Company Circle-III(2), Chennai-600 034. 2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Trichy. 3.The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 77361. T.C.A.No.972 of 2014EV(CO)SP(25/10/2019)