PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. MOTHER MIRA INDUSTRIES LIMIT

T.C.A.No.243 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.243 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2, No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. .. Appellant -vs- M/s.Mother Mira Industries Limited, C/o.M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan & Ramamani, Advocates, New No.75, Old No.105A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. PAN: AAC CM 2392 L .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 28.10.2016, made in I.T.A.No.2135/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. Mr.R.Venkatanarayana, For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan & Ramamani 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.243 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.10.2016, made in I.T.A.No.2135/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in holding that if the rental receipt had been subjected to tax in the hands of recipient, there cannot be any disallowance in the hands of the assessee under Section 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, towards non deduction of tax at source on the rental receipt? and (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT is correct in law in relying on 2nd proviso to Sub Clause (ia) of Clause (a) of Section 40, even though the same was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 prospectively with effect from 01.04.2013 and as such not applicable for the assessment year 2009-10?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.R.Venkatanarayana, learned counsel, for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.243 of 2017 Padmanabhan & Ramamani, for the respondent. 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 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High 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. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.243 of 2017 V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) To 1.M/s.Mother Mira Industries Limited, C/o.M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan & Ramamani, Advocates, New No.75, Old No.105A, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.243 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in