THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.MRF LTD

TCA.No.1121 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.1121 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.MRF Ltd., Chennai-6 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.5.2015 made in ITA.No.521/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbarayar Aiyer Padmanabhan Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Subbaraya 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1121 of 2015 Aiyer Padmanabhan, learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 13.5.2015 made in ITA.No.521/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal has been admitted on 08.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additions made by the AO under Section 115WB(1) under the Fringe Benefit Tax? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad as it is against the Rule of consistency especially when the decision for the earlier asst years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 had been decided in favour of the department but had deviated from the same in the present asst. year especially when there is no change in the circumstances? And 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the provisions of Sec.115WB(2) and 115WB(3) are not applicable especially when the basis of taxation for Fringe Benefit has been clarified in Board Circular 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1121 of 2015 No.8 of 2005?" 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 16.6.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1121 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS TCA.No.1121 of 2015 16.6.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in