PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. M/S. HELIOS AND MATHESON INF

TCA.Nos.518 to 521/2019 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 07.9.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.518 to 521 of 2019 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Helios & Matheson Information Technology Ltd., Chennai-17. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 22.1.2016 made respectively in ITA.Nos. 2029, 2028, 2027 and 2030/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2009-10, 2008-09, 2006-07 and 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC For Respondent: Mr.Venkata Narayanan for

M/s.Subbraya Aiyer Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.518 to 521/2019 We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act), are directed against the common order dated 22.1.2016 made respectively in ITA.Nos.2029, 2028, 2027 and 2030/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) respectively for the assessment years 2009-10, 2008-09, 2006-07 and 2010-11. 3. The appeals were admitted on 30.7.2019 on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the assessee is outside the scope of Section 14A of the Act as the investments were made in the subsidiary companies in the form of enquiry ? 2. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that when the assessee made investment in the subsidiary companies, the intention of the assessee is not for earning exempt income but because of commercial expediency ? and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.518 to 521/2019 circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 14A would not be applicable to the assessee for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2008- 09, when the said provision exists retrospectively with effect from 01.4.1962 ?” 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 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. 07.9.2020 RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.518 to 521/2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. TCA.Nos.518 to 521 of 2019 07.9.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in