THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S BHARAT SCANS PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 and concerns the depreciation rate applicable to a PET/CT scan machine and a UPS. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, citing a low tax effect in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the PET/CT scan machine is entitled to a higher depreciation rate of 40% as per Part A III (3)(xia) of the depreciation table under the Income Tax Rules, despite not being explicitly included in the list of equipment. 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing higher depreciation on the PET/CT scan machine by comparing its functions to a SPECT Gamma Camera, overlooking the item-wise listing of equipment eligible for higher depreciation. 3. Whether the UPS is entitled to a higher depreciation rate of 40% as per Part A III (3)(xia) of the depreciation table, given it is not listed as life-saving medical equipment. The Revenue contended that the PET/CT scan machine and UPS were not specifically listed in the relevant depreciation table entry, and the Tribunal erred in allowing higher depreciation based on functional similarity or by overlooking the item-wise nature of the list. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee, M/s. Bharat Scans Pvt. Ltd., on these points.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.550 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.550 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Bharat Scans Pvt. Ltd., 197, Peters Road, Royapettah Chennai - 600 014. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.02.2014 made in ITA.No.1300/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.550 of 2015 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 20.03.2014 made in ITA.No.1466/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.The appeal was admitted on 11.08.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the PET/CT scan machine is entitled for higher rate of depreciation @ 40%, when the same is not included in the list of equipments in Part A III (3)(xia) of the depreciation table under the Income Tax Rules? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the PET/CT scan machine is entitled for higher of depreciation @ 40% on the ground that it performs functions similar to a SPECT Gamma Camera by overlooking the fact that each equipment eligible for higher rate of depreciation is mentioned separately item wise in the depreciation table? and (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that UPS is entitled for higher rate of depreciation @ 40%, when the same is not included in the list of equipments described as life saving medical equipments in Part A III(3)(xia) of the depreciation table under the Income Tax Rules?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.550 of 2015 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Bharat Scans Pvt. Ltd., 197, Peters Road, Royapettah Chennai - 600 014. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.550 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.550 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026