PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.GREENLAND EXPORTS PVT LT

TCA.No.578 of 2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.578 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Greenland Exports Pvt.Ltd., Chennai-17. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.12.2015 made in ITA.No.1927/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent: Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar, learned counsel appearing 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2016 for the respondent – assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.12.2015 made in ITA. No.1927/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2008-09. 3. The appeal was admitted on 22.8.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in restricting the quantum of upward revision by adopting ALP at Rs.18.18 crores as against Rs.16.42 crores determined by the Assessing officer? ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse in holding Internal TNMM (Transactional Net Margin Method) could be taken for justifying the ALP determination wherein the uncontrolled entities maintained by the assessee are associate enterprise of the group companies which is hit by Section 92A(2)(i) of the Income Tax Act? and iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the fact that while computing ALP transaction with related party had been taken into account which is against the provisions of the statute?" 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2016 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 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.) 30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.578 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.578 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in