The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.cosmo Global Ltd.,Old

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.08.2019 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.874 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai....Appellant/ Appellant Vs M/s.Cosmo Global Ltd.,Old No.5, New No.17, 1st Floor, Apex Plaza,Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034.PAN: AAACT82018...Respondent/ RespondentAPPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated12.06.2018madeinITA.No.2845/Chny/2017 on the file of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessmentyear 2013-14 preferred against the order of thecommissioner of Income tax (Appeals) chennai 34 inITA.NO.345/CIT(a)/2015-2016 Dated 22.09.2017 filed againstthe assessment order of the Income Tax officer corporateWard 1(3) chennai 34 dated 29.01.2016 for the Assessmentyear 2013-2014. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior StandingCounsel appearing for the appellant/revenue andMr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for therespondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260Aof the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the orderdated 12.06.2018 made in ITA.No.2845/Chny/2017 on the fileof the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench forthe assessment year 2013-14. 3.The appeal was admitted on 03.12.2018 on thefollowing substantial questions of law : “i.Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the belated payments ofemployees' contribution made on account of PFand ESI dues are allowable as deduction underSection 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act? ii.Whether the Finding and reasoning ofthe Tribunal is correct especially when, asper Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x), the belated payment of PF/ESIcontributions made beyond the due datesprescribed under the respective Acts wouldbecome the income of the assessee? iii.Whether the Tribunal was right inholding that the payment made to non residenttranslators would not fall within the scope offees for technical, managerial or consultancyservices as described in Explanation 2 ofSection 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act? and iv.Whether the Tribunal was right indeleting the disallowance made under Section40(a)(ia) as no TDS was effected especiallywhen technical services like translating wouldfall within the meaning of Explanation 2 toSection 9(1) of the Act?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for theappellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued bythe Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms ofCircular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the CentralBoard of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetarylimit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the HighCourt has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is furthersubmitted that the tax effect in this case is less than thethreshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above taxcase appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. Inthe event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixedin the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue tomake a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to beheard and decided on merits. No costs. Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar cse To 1.THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI C BENCH. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CHENNAI. 3.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD 1(3) CHENNAI 34 A.SK(08/11/2019)