The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.prakash Impex

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs. M/s.Prakash ImpexNo.58E, Sidco Industrial Estate,Ambattur,Chennai – 600 098.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras, “A” Bench, dated 30.03.2012 inI.TA.No.8/Mds/2011, Assessment Year 2008-09. Against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) IV Chennai-34 dated 17-11-2011 in ITA No. 110/10-11/A-IV for the Assessment year 2008-09 against the Assessmentorder dated. 23-12-2010 by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax circle-XI Chennai-6 for the Assesment year 2008-09. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman,learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directedagainst the order dated 30.03.2012 made in I.TA.No.8/Mds/2011on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A”Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year2008-09. 3.The appeal was admitted on 02.04.2014 on the followinghttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in deletingthe disallowance of commission amounting toRs.1,45,83,443/- paid to non-resident agent? 2.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the provisions of Section 195 are notapplicable to the facts of the present case? 3.Whether on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right in holdingthat provision of Section 40(a)(i) are notapplicable?” 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.By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing orpursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased toRs.1 crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect inthis case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above TaxCase Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the LowTax Effect. The substantial questions of law framed are leftopen. In the event the tax effect in this case is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) mkn //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle XI, 611 Annasalai, Chennai-600 006 Business Circle XI, 611 Annasalai, Chennai-600 006 T.C.A.No.866 of 2013 SS(CO) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/A.SK(13.07.2021)