The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai-34 v. M/S.vimkar Contract Works Pvt.ltd., Chennai-28

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Vimkar Contract Works Pvt.Ltd., Chennai-28....Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 07.8.2015 made in ITA.No.1329/Mds/2015 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2010-11. against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (AppealsI) 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai – 600 034, Old ITA.No.1714/13-14 New ITA.No. 606/CIT (A) – 11 /2013-14 dated12/03/2015 PAN for the Assessment year 2010-11 andagainst the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle – III (4), Chennai 34 dated 28/02/2013GIR.No/PAN.AABCV 3911H for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior StandingCounsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counselappearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran,learned counsel 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 dated07.8.2015 made in ITA.No. 1329/Mds/2015 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for theassessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeal was admitted on 28.6.2016 on the followingsubstantial questions of law :“(i) Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the assessee isentitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(4)even though the assessee company ismanufacturing the good only as a workcontractor in the premises rented out by theprincipal and that too, under thesupervision of the principal? and(ii) Whether, on the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal wasright in holding that the Explanation at theend of Section 80IA, which states that aperson, who executes works contract, couldnot be given the benefit, cannot be madeapplicable to cases that fall under Section80IB ?" 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// Rs Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III (4), Chennai – 34. Company Circle III (4), Chennai – 34. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate, S.R.No. 75843 TCA.No.441 of 2016 AD(CO)GN(13/11/2019)