The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.a.b.mauri India Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellant Vs. M/s.A.B.Mauri India Pvt. Ltd.,No.2/15, Ganapathy Colony,Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Madras, “A” Bench, dated 11.02.2015 in I.TA.No.769/Mds/2012,Assessment Year 2002-03 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals) – III, Chennai – 600 034 dated 25/01/2012in PAN.No. for the Assessment year 2002-2003.Appeal against the Assessment order passed by the AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax Company Circle 1(1) Chennai dated14/09/2007 in PAN No. /AX6-628 for the Assessment Year2002-2003. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi KumarSenior Standing CounselFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,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 11.02.2015 made in I.TA.No.769/Mds/2012 on the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench(for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2002-03.3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantialquestions of law:“1.Whether on the facts and circumstances ofthe case, the Tribunal was right in allowingdepreciation in non compete fees? and 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad byallowing depreciation on non compete feesespecially when right to trade freely and tocompete in the market is not an asset and rightto personal service under a contract of serviceis unassignable, which cannot be bought or soldand has no actual and marketable value andtherefore, cannot be termed as an asset?” 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(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mkn To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle 1(1), Chennai. +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.34777 T.C.A.No.510 of 2015 KV(CO)RLP(09/08/2021)