THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.AJINOMOTO INDIA PCT. LTD

TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.1854 of 2021 in T.C.A.No.116 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in both cases Vs M/s.Ajinomoto India Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.14, Onehub Chennai, Panchanthiruthi Village, Manambathi Post, Kancheepuram - 603 105. PAN: AAECA116A ...Respondent in both cases COMMON PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 18.01.2018 made in ITA.No.3035/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 and ITA.No.3034/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 (in both cases) For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) These appeals, filed by the Revenue, are directed against the order dated 18.01.2018 made in made in ITA.No.3035/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2011-12 and ITA.No.3034/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai ('The Tribunal' for brevity). 2. The appellant-Revenue in TCA.No.116 of 2021 has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the transaction relating to expenditure incurred on advertising, marketing and sales promotion leading to adjustment of aggregate of Rs.88,29,277/- to Arms Length Price was not covered by international transaction u/s.92B of the I.T Act?" 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 3. The appellant-Revenue in TCA.No.117 of 2021 has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: "Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the transaction relating to expenditure incurred on advertising, marketing and sales promotion leading to adjustment of aggregate of Rs.88,29,277/- to Arms Length Price was not covered by international transaction u/s.92B of the I.T Act and deleting the adjustments made?" 4. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 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. 6. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 02.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk T.C.A.Nos.116 & 117 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.1854 of 2021 in T.C.A.No.116 of 2021 02.02.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/