THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S. WAYNE BURT PETROCHEMICA

TCA.No.235 of 2020 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 26.08.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.235 of 2020 and CMP.No.8858 of 2020 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Wayne Burt Petrochemicals (P) Ltd, (formerly known as Bailey Hydro Power Pvt Ltd) SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai Sriperumbudhur Taluk, Chennai 602 105 PAN AABCB 1804F ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 03.09.2018 made in ITA.No.1025/chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.235 of 2020 Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 03.09.2018 made in ITA.No. 1025/chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation at 60% in respect of design and assembly drawings of hydraulics cylinders, Bill of materials and other components in CD as computer software and allowing higher depreciation at 60% especially when the assets was not a software program with design, pre 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.235 of 2020 embedded readily available for purchase in market but is developed design as per the requirements specified for a standard specification, in a specific readable software which is in the nature of intangible asset, eligible for depreciation at 25% only? 2. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the consideration of 11,00,000/- US dollars has been paid for license agreement with AE Bailey International Corporation USA in respect of the impugned assets shown is a intangible assets which is not covered under the heading computer software eligible for 60% depreciation? 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 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.235 of 2020 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 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.)

26.08.2020 Internet: Yes /No Index : Yes/No To The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.235 of 2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J sk TCA.No.235 of 2020 26.08.2020 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in