THE COMMISSIIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. CAPLIN POINT LABORATORI

T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.355 and 356 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant in both TCAs Versus M/s.Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd., Narbavi No.3, Lakshmanan Street, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

... Respondent in both TCAs (PAN No.AABCC2667F) Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, dated 25.11.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.889/Mds/2014 and 1274/MDS/2014. Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 For Appellant in both TCAs' : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent in both TCAs' : Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai I.T.A.Nos.889/Mds/2014 and 1274/MDS/2014, relating to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. By order dated 21.06.2019, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of depreciation on goodwill is to be allowed especially when the assessee has not made any claim regarding depreciation on goodwill in the return of income filed nor any any revised return has been filed to that effect which is contrary to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Goezte India Ltd reported in 284 ITR 323? Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 (ii) Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the assessee did not make a claim of depreciation in the return of income nor a revised return was filed but had made a fresh claim during the assessment proceedings which is contrary to Section 139 (1) and 139(5) of the I.T.Act, 1961? (iii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when Section 115a is a specific Section which allows credit only for those provisions contained therein and does not provide for contrary forward and set of MAT credit of the amalgamating company in the hands of the amalgamated company?" 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 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 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 Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 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.) 24.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No r n s Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - I, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle I (3), Chennai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.355 & 356 of 2018 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s T.C.A.Nos.355 and 356 of 2018 24.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis