The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.ennore Port Ltd. 23, Rajaji Salai, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.831 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs. M/s.Ennore Port Ltd.23, Rajaji Salai, Chennai.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “C” Bench, dated 11.05.2012 in I.TA.No.237/Mds/2012,Assessment Year 2004-05 and Against the order dated:08/11/2011made in ITA No 717/08-09/A-III on the file of the commission ofIncome tax (Appeals)-III,Chennai and against the order dated01/12/2008 made in AAACE9013G on the file of the DeputyCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-II(1), Chennai. For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji,learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed againstthe order dated 11.05.2012 made in I.TA.No.237/Mds/2012 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantialquestions of law in the above appeal :“1.Whether on the facts and in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that theexpenditure relating to prior period interestamounting to Rs.1,12,74,194/- is to be allowedu/s.37? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that thedepreciation on port creation expenses amountingto Rs.36.70 lakhs are to be allowed inspite ofthe fact the same was not classified in theAppendix-I of the depreciation table under IncomeTax Rules? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the port creation charges can be termedas a building or plant and machinery for claimingdepreciation?” 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 08.08.2019 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 as withdrawn on account of the Low TaxEffect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open.In the event the tax effect in this case is above the thresholdlimit fixed in the said Circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal tobe heard and decided on merits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-II(1), Chennai. Company Circle-II(1), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.N.V.Balaji, Advocate, S.R.No.28676 RSV(CO)SB(19/07/2021) T.C.A.No.831 of 2013