THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. CHENNAI PORT TRUST

T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Versus Chennai Port Trust, C/o.Sundaram Narayanan, Chartered Accountants, 18, Balaiah Avenue, Luz Church Road, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. ... Respondent (PAN No.AAALC 0025 B) Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, dated 25.11.2016 in I.TA.No.1143/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskar Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench in I.T.A.No.1143/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2010-11, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct and justified in holding that investment made in sister concerns / government companies are not liable for disallowance under Section 14A when the provisions of the said Section as well as Rule 8D does not provide for any such exception? (ii) Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was justified in not appreciating the fact that investment in shares of sister concern also yielded only dividend income, which is exempt from income tax and hence provisions of Section 14A are applicable? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Tribunal was right in not following the decisions of High Courts in MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD., (Del) 347 ITR 272 and LEENA RAMACHANDRAN (Ker) 339 ITR 296 on identical issue but following Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 the decision of the Tribunal?" 2. 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. 3. 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.) 24.08.2022 r n s

Internet : Yes. Index : Yes / No. Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) - 13, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Range-VIII, Chennai. T.C.A.No.353 of 2018 24.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis