The Hon'ble Dr.justice Vineet Kothariandthe Hon'ble Dr.justice Anita Sumanth v. M/S.r.k.swamy Bbdo Pvt. Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.2.2019 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai III.Appellant Vs. M/s.R.K.Swamy BBDO Pvt. Ltd.,604, Mount Road, Chennai 600 006. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 9.1.2009 made inITA No.2340/Mds/2007 for the Assessment year 2004-05against the Commisioner of Incoemt Tax(Appeals)V Chennai.Dated 22.06.2007 made in ITA.NO.541/2006-2007 for theassessment year 2004-2005 against the Joint Commisioner ofIncome tax Company Range V, Chennai. Dated 21.12.2006 madein PAN .AAACR3511 for the assessment year 2004-2005. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel For respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.SridharJ U D G M E N T(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenuecalling in question the correctness of the order passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai,dated 9.1.2009 made in ITA No.2340/Mds/2007, by raising thefollowing substantial question of law:"(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the AppellateTribunal was right in holding that thedisallowance of part of the rent paid to theassociate concern M/s.Thiruvengadam Investments(P) Ltd., being payments made to a personspecified under Section 40A(2)(b), found to beexcessive on the basis of the rent paid byother tenants of the same building, was not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ justified and in confirming the deletion of thesaid disallowance?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, thelearned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circularinstruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxesvide Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it isstipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by theDepartment before the High Court in cases where the taxeffect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to beless than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, theappeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed,keeping open the substantial question of law fordetermination in an appropriate case. Sd/-- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrarssk.To1. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai III. 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai.3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle V, Chennai 600 006. 4.The Joint Commisioner of Income tax, Company Range V,Chennai. 5.The Commisioner of Incoemt Tax(Appeals)V Chennai. +1cc to Mr.M.Swaminathan , Advocate SR.No. 8629 TCA No.1071 of 2009A.SK(26/02/2019)