COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MR.T.RAJENDARAN

T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

.. Appellant Versus T.Rajendaran .. Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench, dated 28.10.2015 in I.TA.No.744/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Senior Standing Counsel M/s.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.744/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. By order dated 25.07.2016, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “ (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding the interest paid for delayed payment is in the nature of interest paid for delayed payment of trading liability and cannot be treated as interest on loan as per Section 2 (28A) and tax need not be deducted at source under Section 194 A and consequently, the claim for deduction cannot be disallowed, by invoking the provisions of Section 40.a.ia. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40 a (ia) can be invoked only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on last day of the financial year and not the expenditure paid during the financial year?" Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 3. 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. 4. 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 question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.) 11.08.2022 av

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J. av To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 3. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Nagapattinam. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Tiruchirapalli. T.C.A.No.445 of 2016 11.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis