The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chennai v. M/S.sical Logistics Limited

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... AppellantVs. M/s.Sical Logistics Limited,73, Armenain Street,Chennai – 600 001.... 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 05.10.2011 in I.TA.No.1628/Mds/2009,Assessment Year 2004-05. As against the order dated 06.02.2009 by the Office of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V in I.T.A.No.701/2006-07Assessment Year 2004-05 and as against the order dated29.12.2006 by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, Company Circle V(1), Assessment Year 2004-05. (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.Kaushik forMr.S.Sridhar, 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 05.10.2011 made in I.TA.No.1628/Mds/2009 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C”Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2004-05. 3.The appeal was admitted on 12.08.2013 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that theoriginal cost of purchase of ships should beallowed as a deduction as against the claim ofthe department that only depreciated value of theship should be allowed as a deduction whilecomputing the capital gains on the sale of shipin view of Explanation (5) of Section 32 whichwas introduced with effect from 01.04.2002? 2.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that nodepreciation should be deemed to have beenallowed for the assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 for alleged non use of the ships whendepreciation is to be allowed even on passiveuse? 3.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that Rule8D is operative only from 01.04.2007?” 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(CS III) //True Copy// mkn Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” BenchChennai, “C” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.Chennai. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)V,Chennai.Chennai. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle V(1),Chennai.Chennai. T.C.A.No.475 of 2013 SSN(CO)CS/23/06/2021