The Commissioner Of Income Tax Tamil Nadu-Viii, Chennai v. Delivered By Dr.vineet Kothari,J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.12.2018 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Tax Case Appeal No.112 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax Tamil Nadu-VIII, Chennai.... Appellant Vs. Smt.Shilpa DugarChennai-600 018... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.6.2008 made in IT(SS)A No.49/Mds/2006, against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals)-I, Chennai 34 dated 26.12.2005 in ITANo.81/05-06 for the Assessment Year (Block 1.4.88 to 15.12.98)against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle IV (3), Chennai dated 29.06.2005 inP.A.No./G.I.No.ALUPS3201L/756-S. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.PremalathaJ U D G M E N T (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 27.6.2008 madein IT(SS)A No.49/Mds/2006, by raising the following substantialquestions of law: "(i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in holding that theassessee as a share holder of TNPL had not receivedany cash consideration for accepting the merger ofTDPL with SPIL? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was right in holding thatinterest paid by SPIL to the assessee for the periodfrom 1.7.1997 till the date of search cannot bebrought to tax?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal-I) Chennai-34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle IV (3), Chennai. TCA No.112 of 2009 rr[co]srg 15/03/2019