The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd. “Ali Towers” Iv Floor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 28.06.2021 CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.254 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs M/s.Apollo Hospital Enterprises Ltd.“Ali Towers” IV Floor,55, Greams Road,Chennai – 600 006.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras, “D” Bench, dated 29.03.2012 inI.TA.No.1571/Mds/2010, Assessment Year 1997-98. Against theorder dated.28/06/2010 made in ITA No.587/09-10/A.III on thefile of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennaias against the order dated.23/12/2009 made in PA/GIRNo.AAACA5443N/AXI-015 on the file of the Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax Company Circle-1(1), Chennai for the assessmentyear 1997-98. For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel and Mrs.K.G.Usha Rani, learned StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learnedcounsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainsttheorderdated29.03.2012madeinI.TA.No.1571/Mds/2010 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) forthe Assessment Year 1997-98.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 25.08.2014 on the followingsubstantial questions of law:“1.Whether in and facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee is entitledto deduction of lease equalisation charges inaddition to the depreciation already claimed byit? 2.Whether in and facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee is entitledto deduction of lease equalisation charges eventhough it is not a non banking financecompany?” 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.By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing orpursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased toRs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect inthis case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above TaxCase Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the LowTax Effect. The substantial questions of law framed are leftopen. In the event the tax effect in this case is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// mknTo Sub Assistant Registrar 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench. Chennai, “D” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-1(1), Chennai. Company Circle-1(1), Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ +1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.29579 +1cc to Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.29901T.C.A.No.254 of 2014 RSV(CO)GN(23/07/2021)