THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/SINTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS &

TCA..Nos.346 & 347/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.346 & 347 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai .. Appellant in both appeals Versus M/s. International Flavours & Fragrances (I) P Ltd., 1-5, Seven Wells Street, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016 .. Respondent in both appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench, Chennai, dated 02.09.2014 passed in respective ITA Nos.1242 & 1243/Mds/2014 in respect of respective Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008- 09. For Appellant : Mr. T.Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA..Nos.346 & 347/2015

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 02.09.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench, Chennai in respective ITA Nos.1242 & 1243/Mds/2014 for the respective Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. On 17.08.2015, these tax case appeals were admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law: ' i) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation at 60% on UPS holding that it was a part of the computer as against 15% allowed by the Assessing Officer holding it as a part of electrical appliances? And ii) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who deleted the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) in respect of expenses claimed towards reimbursement of communication expenses paid to non resident by treating the same as royalty as per Section 9(1)(vi) since the same had been used or right to use its equipment viz., leased line/server which was backed by the assessee?” 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA..Nos.346 & 347/2015 3. When the matters were 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 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). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals 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 appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 26.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA..Nos.346 & 347/2015 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr To 1. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large TaxPayer Unit, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai-101 3. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “D” Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.346 & 347 of 2015 26.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis