PRINCIPAL CIMMISSIONER vs. M\\S.SRI RAMACHANDRA

T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ... Appellant

Versus M/s. Sri Ramachandra Educational & Health Trust, 24, Sir CV Raman Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. PAN: AAA TS 2283 D ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.914/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.914/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2010-11. 2.By order dated 02.06.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the addition of Rs.28,74,854/- invested in M/s.Egmore Benefit Fund Ltd., was contrary to Section 11(5) of the Income Tax Act and whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in law in deleting the same? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that consideration paid by the assessee to M/s. Harvard International USA was not liable for deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Income Tax Act? and (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount paid to M/s.Harvard International USA was not liable for TDS, without examining the Memorandum of Agreement and determining Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 whether the nature of payment was "Royalty" or "fee for technical service" or "reimbursement of expenditure"? 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 23.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-1 (3), Chennai - 34. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai. T.C.A.No.237 of 2017 23.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis