The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.cognizant Technology Solutionsindia Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-86

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.548 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Cognizant Technology SolutionsIndia Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-86 ...Respondent Prayer: APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order dated 28.8.2013 made in ITA.No.1094/Mds/2012on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C'Bench for the assessment year 2008-09, prefered against theorder of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai,dated 20.02.2012, made in FBTA.No.1/10-11/LJU(A), against theDeputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Chennai dated 30.11.2010,made in PAN.No.AAACD.3312M, for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent:Mr.N.V.Balaji Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learnedSenior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenueand Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent– assessee. Page numbers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 28.8.2013 made in ITA.No.1094/Mds/2012on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C'Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 22.7.2015 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the expendituretowards recreation club and sports club isnot in the nature of fringe benefit andtherefore deleted the additions madeespecially when the same is covered underSection 115WB(M)(N) ?2. Is not the finding of the Tribunalbad, especially when the statute had notdifferentiatedabouttheexpenditureincurred on the clubs maintained by theemployer or the club maintained by thirdpersons while dealing with fringe benefittax ?3. Whether the finding of the Tribunalwas proper in holding that the travelexpenditure incurred for business purposedoes not attract FBT? and 4. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the fringebenefit tax paid on employee stock optionplan the liability towards on short paymentof advance tax paid no interest is to becharged under Section 115WJ(3) ?" 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 said Page numbers https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar RS To1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chennai.3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.4.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.TCA.No.548 of 2015SSV(CO)CB(09/10/2020) Page numbers