The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.data Software Research Company P. Ltd.kasturi Towers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAMandThe Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP T.C.A.No.456 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income tax,Chennai. ...Appellant -vs- M/s.Data Software Research Company P. Ltd.Kasturi Towers, No.6, Smith Road,Chennai-600 002.PAN: ...RespondentAppeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961againsttheorderdated17.07.2015madeinI.T.A.No.1838/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. Against the appeallate order dated 17.03.2014 made in ITANo.760/11-12/A-1 passed by The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1 Chennai for the Assessment year 2009-2010. Againstthe Assessment order dated 30.12.2011 made in PAN No.AAACD1271Hpassed by The Income Tax Department, Deputy Commissioner ofIncome Tax Company Circle–1(4) Chennai for the Assessment year2009-2010. For Appellant:Ms.R.Hemalatha,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent :Mr.R.VenkatanarayananFor M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar,Padmanabhan & Ramamani JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal, by the appellant/Revenue, filed under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dated 17.07.2015, made in I.T.A.No.1838/Mds/2014 on the file ofthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai (forbrevity “the Tribunal”) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2.The appeal was admitted on 26.07.2016, on the followingsubstantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holding that thebrought forward losses of the domestic divisionneed not be set off against the profit of the EOU(STPI Unit) while computing deduction underSection 10 B of the Income Tax Act in order toarrive at the net business loss? 2. Whether the finding of the Tribunal isproper by holding that any expenditure deductedfrom the export turnover should also be deductedfrom the total turnover while arriving at theeligible deduction made under Section 10 A whichis contrary to the wording in the statute? 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal badespecially when as per Explanation (2) (iii) toSection 10 B has defined the word Export Turnoverby which freight telecommunication charges etc.,are to be specifically excluded while computingdeduction? and 4. Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in directing the AOto disallow only 2% of the dividend incomeinstead of 10% made by the AO without anyrational basis?” 3.Perused the impugned order dated 17.07.2015, passed by theTribunal and we find that the tax effect is below the thresholdlimit prescribed in the circular issued by the Central Board ofDirect Taxes in Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019.Therefore, the Revenue cannot prosecute this appeal andaccordingly, this appeal is dismissed on the ground of low taxeffect and the substantial questions of law framed are leftopen. In the event, the tax effect is above the threshold limitfixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heardand decided on merits. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar abr To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals-1) Chennai. Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-1(4), Chennai. +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Ayar, Advocate, Sr.39624+1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, Sr.39688 T.C.A.No.456 of 2016 RLD[co]NSK 26/08/2021