The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.carborandum Universal Ltd., Chennai-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.768 & 769 of 2016 & CMP.No.16986 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai...Appellant VsM/s.Carborandum Universal Ltd.,Chennai-1....Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 01.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.250 and298/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2002-03 and againstthe Order dated 31.10.2014 made in ITA No.56/09-10/LTU(A) passedby the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Large Tax payerUnit, Chennai and against the Order dated 16.12.2009 passed bythe Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, LTU, Chennai for theAssessment Year 2002-03. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC andMrs.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent:Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.R. Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for therespondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common orderdated 01.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.250 and 298/Mds/2015 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2002-03. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The appeals were admitted on 01.11.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “TCA.No.768 of 2016 : i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the deduction underSection 80HHC can be allowed even withoutreducing the deduction under Section 80IA ?and ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad by considering the provisions of Section80IA(9), which was introduced with effectfrom 01.4.1999?TCA.No.769 of 2016 : Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inholding that the miscellaneous income is tobe excluded on net basis especially when theassessee has included all its income underthe head 'business' only and therefore, thenet component could be determined?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, theconnected CMP is also dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// To1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Large Tax payer Unit, Chennai 3.The Addl. Commissioner of Income tax, LTU, Chennai.Income tax, LTU, Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, SR.No.75268 +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, Advocate, SR.No.75928 TCA.Nos.768 & 769 of 2016& CMP.No.16986 of 2016 Kak(19/11/2019)