The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. M/S.cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.03.2020 CORAMTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.191 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income TaxChennai....AppellantVs. M/s.Cognizant Technology SolutionsIndia Pvt Ltd., 5/535, Okkiam, OldMahabalipuram Road, Thoraipakkam, Chennai 600 096....Respondent ...Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 09.07.2015 inITA.251/Mds/2015, against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai dated 30/10/2014relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07 in FBTA No.04/11-12/LTU(A) against the Order dated 12/12/2011 passed by theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit,Chennai-101. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEETKOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, byraising the following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Appellate Tribunal was right in recalling itsorder dated 18.04.2013 whereby the originalorder of the Tribunal was restored without evenlisting the case for hearing on merits? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified inrestoring the orders of the dismissal dated20.08.2007 and 21.01.2008 wherein issue ofapproval by the Committee on Dispute was nolonger relevant in view of the constitutionalBench judgment in the case of ElectronicsCorporation of India Ltd? 3. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatonly travel expenditure for the benefit ofemployee constitutes Fringe Benefit when thereis no such stipulation u/s.115WB(2)? 4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal isproper by holding that interest u/s.115WJ(3) isnot leviable on advance FBT on ESOP? 5. Whether the finding of the Tribunal isproper on the question of levy of interestu/s.115WJ(3) wherein the Apex Court has heldthat levy of such interest is mandatory?” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, thelearned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxesvide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, itis stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued bythe Department before the High Court in cases where the taxeffect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to beless than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, theappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed,keeping open the substantial questions of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar KST To 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,Chennai. 'A' Bench,Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai-1. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.21884+1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate Sr.22426 T.C.(A) No.191 of 2017 ss[co]srg 02/06/2020