The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.adyar Gate Hotels Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.Nos.494 and 495 of 2013 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellantin all appeals Vs. M/s.Adyar Gate Hotels Ltd.,132, TTK Road,Chennai – 600 018.... Respondentin all appeals Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.494 and 495 of 2013 preferredunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against theorder of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench,dated 14.12.2012 in I.T.A.Nos.1502/Mds/2012 and 1620/Mds/2012,respectively for the Assessment Year 2009-10. As against the order dated 17/05/2012 by the office of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III,Chennai-34, in ITANo.306/2011-12/A III for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and asagainst the order dated 21/12/2011 by the officer of the jointCommissioner of Income Tax (OSD)Company Circle -I(1), Chennai-34for the Assessment Year 2009-10. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan forM/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The above appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directedagainsttheorderdated14.12.2012madeinI.T.A.Nos.1502/Mds/2012 and 1620/Mds/2012, on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench (for brevity,the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 3.The above appeals were admitted on 03.09.2013 on thefollowing substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the treatment of rental incomefrom business for hire charges for plant and machineryare to be treated as income from other sources? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin holding that disallowance made u/s.14A in respectof interest as per Rule 8D (2)(ii) is not to be takenin account while computing the disallowance? 3.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin upholding the order of CIT(A) holding thatdisallowance u/s.14A r/w.Rule 8D is proper?” 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 08.08.2019 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 these cases isless than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax CaseAppeals are 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 these cases is above thethreshold limit fixed in the said Circular, liberty isgranted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court torestore the above appeals to be heard and decided on merits. Nocosts. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mknToTo 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench. Madras, “B” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(appeals -III) Chennai-34. Chennai-34. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD),Company Circle -I(1), Chennai -34.Company Circle -I(1), Chennai -34. +2cc to M/s.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, Sr.No. 21747+1 cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate Sr.No. 21754+1 cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate Sr.No. 21754 SSN(CO)RMP(06/05/2021) T.C.A.Nos.494 and 495 of 2013