The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.bharat Scans Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.08.2019 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.550 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...AppellantVs M/s.Bharat Scans Pvt. Ltd.,197, Peters Road, RoyapettahChennai - 600 014. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 13.02.2014 made in ITA.No.1300/MDS/2013 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2009-10 as against the Order dated 18.2.13 of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai -34, in ITA No.665/11-12/A-III and as against the Order dated 31.12.11 of the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, for the Assessment Year2009-10 in GIR/PAN AABCB 2272 K. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar JUDGMENT(Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Kumar, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated20.03.2014 made in ITA.No.1466/MDS/2013 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2009-10. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 11.08.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe PET/CT scan machine is entitled for higher rateof depreciation @ 40%, when the same is notincluded in the list of equipments in Part A III(3)(xia) of the depreciation table under the IncomeTax Rules?(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatthe PET/CT scan machine is entitled for higher ofdepreciation @ 40% on the ground that it performsfunctions similar to a SPECT Gamma Camera byoverlooking the fact that each equipment eligiblefor higher rate of depreciation is mentionedseparately item wise in the depreciation table? and(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding thatUPS is entitled for higher rate of depreciation @40%, when the same is not included in the list ofequipments described as life saving medicalequipments in Part A III(3)(xia) of thedepreciation table under the Income Tax Rules?" 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 08.8.2019 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.cse Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-I(2),Chennai -34 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals-III), Chennai -34. +1cc to Mr.T.N.Seetharaman, Advocate, SR.No.74491+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.73330 TCA.No.550 of 2015Kak(22/10/2019)