The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.deloitte Haskins & Sells,Chennai

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.672 OF 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ...Appellant/Appellant Vs M/s.Deloitte Haskins & Sells,Chennai.PAN: ...Respondent/Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 againstthe order dated 08.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1517/MDS/2017 on thefile of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench forthe assessment year 2012-13. against the order of Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Chennai in ITA.No.71 (CIT(A)-2/2015-16dated 28.03.2017 and against the order of Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax, Chennai in AACFD3771D/2012-13 dated 31.03.2015. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSCFor Respondent: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counselappearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.S.P.Chidambaram,learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated08.02.2018 made in ITA.No.1517/MDS/2017 on the file of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for theassessment year 2012-13. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The appeal was admitted on 28.08.2018 on the followingsubstantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Tribunal was right in holdingthat the payments of Rs.158,56,741/- made to theretiring partners was on account of overridingtitle and therefore allowable expenditureeventhough the payment made was self imposed by theassessee and therefore is application of incomeonly? 2.Whether the gratuitous payments made to theretiring partners is to be treated as a RevenueExpenditure allowable as Business expenditure underSection 37 of the I.T. Act, 1962 even if the sameis not for the purpose of carrying its business?" 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 08.8.2019 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 on account of the low tax effect. Thesubstantial questions of law framed are left open. In the eventthe tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the saidcircular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention tothis Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided onmerits. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// cse Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,None Corporate Circle 1,Chennai.None Corporate Circle 1,Chennai. +1cc to Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate, S.R.No.74237 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, S.R.No.73679 TCA.No.672 of 2018 SJ(CO)CS/31/10/2019