The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.deloitte Haskins & Sells Asv Ramana Towers

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.564 of 2018and C.M.P.No.11591 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....Appellant/RespondentVs M/s.Deloitte Haskins & SellsASV Ramana Towers, No.52, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.PAN: ...Respondent/Appellant APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 25.11.2016 made in ITA.No.2079/MDS/2016 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2011-12 against the order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)2, Chennai dated 04.03.2016for Assessment year 2011-2012 in I.T.A. No. 20/CIT(A)-2/2014-2015 against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax Business Circle I, Chennai in PAN/GIR No. forthe Assessment year 2011-2012. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram 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.S.P.Chidambaram,learned counsel 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 dated25.11.2016 made in ITA.No.2079/MDS/2016 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2011-12. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 27.08.2018 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the payment of Rs.1,49,76,851/- made to theretiring partners, was on account of over-ridingtitle and therefore allowable expenditure even whenthe payment made is self-imposed by the Assesseeand therefore is only application of income? (ii) Whether the gratuitous payments made tothe retiring partner is to be treated as revenueexpenditure allowable under Section 37 of the I.T.Act, even if the same is not for the purpose ofcarrying its business?" 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetition is also closed. -s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)2ChennaiChennai 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle, ChennaiBusiness Circle, Chennai +1 CC to Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate sr 74235 +1 CC to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate sr 73681. TCA.No.564 of 2018 RGN(CO)SP(07/11/2019)