PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER vs. M/S.OLYMPUS ELEVATOR PVT.LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/335/2017HC Madras04 August 2020Bench: THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue brought to its notice a Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or 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). In the instant case, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law are kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed a Tax Case Appeal (TCA) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'A' Bench, dated October 26, 2016. The appeal concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be covered by the ITAT's order. The dispute revolves around the direction by the ITAT to the Assessing Officer to allow Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) credit under Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including surcharge and cess. The Revenue challenged this direction, arguing that surcharge and education cess are not admissible for MAT credit as per the provisions of Section 115JAA. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow MAT credit under Section 115JAA of the Act, including surcharge and cess, when surcharge and education cess are not admissible for claim of credit as per the provisions of Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that surcharge and education cess are not admissible for the claim of MAT credit as per the provisions of Section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue relied on the substantial question of law framed in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 115JAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras A

Order dt.04.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4 NO.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. ... appellant Vs. M/s.Olympus Elevator Private Ltd., by L/R. M/s.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., NO.50-55, Vanagaram Road, Ayanambakkam, Chennai 600 095. ... respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras "A" Bench, dated 26.10.2016 in ITA.No.2217/Mds/2015. For Appellant :: Mr.T. Ravikumar, Sr.Standing Counsel For Respondent :: Ms.Srini Ranjani Srinivasan for Mr.G.Baskar ORDER (Made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) The Court was held by Video Conference, as per the Resolution of the Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residence and the counsel, staff of the Court appearing from their respective residences. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.04.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 2/4 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench by raising the following substantial question of law: " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Tribunal was correct and justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow MAT credit u/s 115JAA of the Act "including surcharge and cess" when surcharge and education cess are not admissible for claim of credit as per provisions of the section 115JAA of the Income Tax Act?” 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8 August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals 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). http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.04.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 3/4 4. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 04.08.2020

kpl/tar To M/s.Olympus Elevator Private Ltd., by L/R. M/s.Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., NO.50-55, Vanagaram Road, Ayanambakkam, Chennai 600 095. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.04.08.2020 in T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 4/4 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. (tar) T.C.A.No.335 of 2017 04.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →