THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.OLYMPIC CARDS LTD.

Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A. Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021 and CMP No. 19285 of 2021 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant in both TCAs Versus

M/s. Olympic Cards Ltd 165, NSC Bose Road Chennai – 600 001 PAN : AAGPPCO3651L .. Respondent in both TCAs

Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai dated 21.09.2016 passed in I.T.A.Nos. 1211/Mds/2014 and 1212/Mds/2014 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021 Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1211/Mds/2014 and 1212/Mds/2014, relating to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- 1.Whether the Tribunal ought to have followed the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Services Vs CIT in Civil Appeal No. 551 of 2017 by an order dated 03.05.2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the disallowance stipulated in Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS u/s.194C is one of consequence for default and though there is difference between paid and payable Sec.40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases where the amount is payable but also when it is paid? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue especially when Section 40(a)(ia) covers not only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of particular year but also amounts paid at any time during the year? 3. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when Sec.40(a)(ia) on which tax is deductible at source under Chapter – XVI-B makes it clear that it will applies to all expenses when the legislature has used the word “payable” and not paid or credited?” 2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021 No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals 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. 3. 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 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 06.12.2021 Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No dhk/Maya To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai “A” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai.

Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. dhk/Maya T.C.A.Nos. 535 & 536 of 2021

06.12.2021 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis