The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.dorcas Market Makers P. Ltd., Chennai-102

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 21.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.451 of 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...AppellantVs M/s.Dorcas Market Makers P. Ltd., Chennai-102. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 31.7.2012 made in ITA.No.67/Mds/2012 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for theassessment year 2007-08, against the order dated 15/10/2011 madein ITA No.402/09-10/A-III on the file of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax Appeals-III, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34against the order dated 18/12/2009 made in PAN/GIR.No.AABCD0728Lon the file of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CompanyCircle 1(4) Chennai. For Appellant :Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent:Ms.J.Sree VidhyaJudgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counseland Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearingfor the appellant – Revenue and Ms.J.Sree Vidhya, learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated31.7.2012 made in ITA.No. 67/Mds/2012 on the file of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessmentyear 2007-08. 3. The appeal was admitted on 20.12.2012 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding thatthedisallowanceofexpenditureonadvertisement amounting to Rs.8,37,35,020/-shown as deferred revenue expenditure is tobe allowed in entirety in the year, inwhich, it was incurred ?ii. Whether the Tribunal was right indismissing the appeal of the Departmentespecially when the advertising expenditureincurred by the assessee was towards thelaunch of its product medimix sandal andmedimix dry skin soap, which conferred abenefit of enduring nature and thereforecapital ? And iii. Whether the finding of the Tribunal was right if the entire deferred revenueexpenditure is allowed in the same year asrevenue expenditure then the correct pictureof the profit for that year could be taxedespecially when the profit of the year isdecreased to a larger extent ?” 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. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant RegistrarTo1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-III, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-34.3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(4), Chennai.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate Sr.71099+1cc to the M/s.J.Sree Vidya, Advocate Sr.71728TCA.No.451 of 2012 nrl[co]srg 14/11/2019