The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Company Circle Iii(2), Chennai-3 v. M/S.tnq Books & Journals Pvt.ltd., Chennai-41

In the High Court of Judicature at MadrasDated : 30.8.2019 The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN The Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(2), Chennai-3...Appellant in both caseVsM/s.TNQ Books & Journals Pvt.Ltd.,Chennai-41. ...Respondent in both case APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the common order dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.752 and1368/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11 against theorder of the commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-II,Chennai-34in ITA.No.1889/2013-14 dated 30/12/2014 against the order of theAssistant commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-III(2),chennai-34 for the Assessment year 2010-2011 dated 28/03/2013. For Appellant :Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, SCFor Respondent:Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan COMMON JUDGMENT We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan,learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order 1/3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.752 and 1368/Mds/2015 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench forthe assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeals were admitted on 02.9.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : i. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the interest onborrowed capital is allowable, as soon asthe land was given for construction whereasthe land was put to use for business onlyafter completion of construction of building? Andii. Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in deleting the disallowance ofinterest on borrowed capital for purchase ofland as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii)?TCA.No.597 of 2016 : Whether, on the facts and circumstancesof the case, the Tribunal was right inallowing the depreciation at the rate of 60%treating it as purchase of computer softwarewhereas the assessee has purchased only theright to use the software and hence, therate of depreciation allowable is only 25%?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellantsubmits that the above appeals are 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 the respectivecases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax caseappeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect in the respective cases is above the threshold 2/3 limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to theRevenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appealsto be heard and decided on merits. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-II Chennai-34 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-III(2) chennai-34 4.The Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle III(2) chennai-34 +1 cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan Advocate sr75842 TCA.Nos.596 & 597 of 2016 rk(co) aa15/11/2019 3/3