The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii Chennai v. M/S.jailaxmi Auto Works & Agenices P Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.1445 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax-IIChennai...Appellant/AppellantVs. M/s.Jailaxmi Auto Works & Agenices P LtdNo.82/B, Veerappanpalayam RoadChinna Sengodampalayam Thindal (PO)Erode-638 009 (PAN No. )...Respondent/Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 06.08.2010 in ITANo.283/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2005-2006 against theorder of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I,Coimbatore dated 21.12.2009 made in PA No.AAACJ5269K for theassessment year 2005-2006 against the order of the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax, Circle -I, Erode, dated 15/12/2008made in PA No.GIR No.AAACJ5269K for the assessment year 2005-2006. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Senniappan (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEETKOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, by raisingthe following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ right in law that the assessee is entitled toclaim for additional depreciation on Wind Mills,even though the assessee had not exercised theoption under Second proviso to Rule 5(1A) beforethe due date for filing the return under Section139(1) in order to claim depreciation at 80%? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in allowing 80% depreciation, eventhough the assessee had purchased and installedwind mill, no electricity was generated and noincome generated under wind mill?” 2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes videCircular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the tax effectdoes not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appealfiled by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping openthe substantial questions of law for determination in anappropriate case. 1.Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,Chennai. VBA(CO)GMY(22/05/2020) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/