The COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. AR HOLDINGS & ELECTRONICS LTD

TCA.Nos.429-431/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.429 to 431 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.9080 & 9081 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.AR Holdings & Electronics Ltd., Chennai-4. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 13.11.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1741 to 1743/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S. Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.429-431/2016 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 13.11.2015 made in ITA.Nos.1741 to 1743/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09. 3. The appeals were admitted on 18.7.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in holding that the lease rental income for usage of properties and the amenities are to be treated as business income only ? And ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the prime object of the assessee was to let out the property and give additional rights of using the furniture and fittings, which are to be treated as income from house property only?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.429-431/2016 pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.)

30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.429-431/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.429 to 431 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.9080 & 9081 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in