PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.BUHARI HOLDINGS PVT.LTD.

T.C.A.No.475 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.475 of 2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-I, No.18, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ... Appellant Versus M/s.Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd., No.4, Moores Road, Buharia Tower, Chennai - 600 006. ... Respondent (PAN No.AAACB 2679 M) Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, dated 13.10.2017 in I.TA.No.3196/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskaran Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.475 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 13.10.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench in I.TA.No.3196/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2016-17, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- "(i) Is the order of the Tribunal not perverse in law in giving relief to the assessee-company by relying upon its earlier order in I.T.A.No.356/Mds/2010, dated 13.05.2011 delivered for the assessement year 2005-06, in which the issue involved is altogether different and issue whether the CIT was justified in invoking Revisional proceeding under Section 263 of the IT Act and not on eligibility of the assessee for Tonnage Tax Scheme as per the provisions of Chapter XII-G of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in upholding the order of the CIT (A) wherein the Ld., CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to grant the renewal of Tonnage Tax Scheme to the assessee-company? (iii) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in interpreting that the stress in the provisions of Section 115VC(c) is on "owning qualifying ship" but not on "Owing at least one qualifying ship", in contrast to what is apparent from the provisions of the above Section?” Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.475 of 2018 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.475 of 2018 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Range-I, Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle I(2), Chennai,

T.C.A.No.475 of 2018 24.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis