The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S.hardy Exploration And Production (India) Inc.floor 5, West Minister Building,108, Radakrishnan Salai,Chennai – 600 004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.02.2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVANAND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD T.C.A.NO.19 OF 2012 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai.... Appellant Versus M/s.Hardy Exploration and Production (India) Inc.Floor 5, West Minister Building,108, Radakrishnan Salai,Chennai – 600 004. ... Respondent PRAYER:-Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench, dated 09.06.2011 in I.TA.No.2154/Mds/2010 preferred against the Order dated 15/09/2010 passed bythe Income Tax Officer (HQ) & Secretary, Dispute ResolutionPanel, Chennai made in F.No.DRP/Chennai/Sectt.029 & 30/2010-11,against the Order dated 30/12/2009 made in PAN.No.AAACV2469Hpassed by the Assistant Director of Income Tax, InternationalTaxation, Chennai – 34 for the assessment year 2002-2003. For Appellant :Mr.Karthik Ranganathan,Senior Standing CounselFor Respondent :M/s.VenkatanarayananFor Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar (Judgment was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by theappellant/Revenue, challenging the order dated 09.06.2011 passedby the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench 'A', Chennai, inI.T.A.No.2154/Mds/2010, relating to the assessment year 2002-03. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. By order dated 13.03.2012, this court admitted theaforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questionsof law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in holding that the SiteRestoration Expenses was an ascertained liability,when the production sharing contract has notoutlined any specific modalities for siterestoration expenses? (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunalwas right in holding that the site restorationexpenditure is an allowable expenditure whilecomputing thee book profit under Section 115JB ofthe Income Tax Act?” 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, thelearned counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the noticeof this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued bythe Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated thatappeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before theHigh Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceedRs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted thatthe tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by thelearned counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeal,wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetarylimit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open thesubstantial questions of law for determination in an appropriatecase. No costs. Assistant Registrar(CS VI) Sub Assistant Registrar vm/kas To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ T.C.A.NO.19 OF 2012SSV(CO)PBS/24/02/2022