The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.alden Prepress Services “B” Block, 20 North Usman Road, T.nagar, Chennai – 600 017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.03.2021 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs. M/s.Alden Prepress Services“B” Block, 20 North Usman Road,T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “D” Bench, dated 02.07.2013 in I.TA.No.927/Mds/2008,Assessment Year 2004-05, confirming the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Chennai in Appeal No-CIT(A)-XI/CHE/49/07-08 dated 30.01.2008 against the Assessmentorder passed by the Income Tax Officer(OSD) Company Circle I(4),Chennai in PAN.No. dated 27.12.2006 for the assessmentyear 2004-2005 and against the order of the Transfer presidingofficer-1, dt-21/12/2006 for the assessment year 2004-05, madein AACCA8961E. For Respondent : Mr.Ashokapathy for M/s.Pass Associates We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.Ashokapathy forM/s.Pass Associates, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order dated 02.07.2013 made in I.TA.No.927/Mds/2008 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 3.The appeal was admitted on 03.08.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in upholding theorder of CIT(A), who deleted the addition ofRs.1,58,59,366/- on account of ALP under Section92CA which was determined by the TPO? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right inupholding the order of CIT(A), withoutappreciating the fact that the TPO had clearlymentionedthatthepricechargedforinternational transaction has not been determinedin accordance with Sec.1(2) of Sec.92C? 3.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byholding that the global market price should beadopted which is not a prescribed method underSection 92C of the I.T. Act especially whenreasons had been given by the TPO for rejectingsuch method and adopted TNMM Method?” 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.17/2019dated 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XI, Chennai. Chennai. 4.The Income Tax Officer(OSD) Company Circle I(4), Chennai. Company Circle I(4), Chennai. 5.The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-1. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.17828 +1cc to M/s.Pass Associates, Advocate, S.R.No.18092 T.C.A.No.376 of 2014 GMI(CO)CB(17/04/2021)