THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S. BRAKES INDIA LTD

TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos. 58 and 59 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai .. Appellant in both appeals Versus M/s.Brakes India Ltd., Padi, Chennai 600 050 ..Respondent in both appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, dated 06.01.2012 passed in respective ITA.Nos.1069 and 1166/Mds/2010 for the respective assessment years 2006-07 and 2006-07. For Appellant in both cases : Mr. T. Ravikumar Standing counsel For Respondent in both cases : Mr.R. Venkata Narayanan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, in respective ITA.Nos.1069 and 1166/Mds/2010 relating to respective assessment years 2006-07 and 2006-07 2. On 15.02.2016, the aforesaid tax case appeals were admitted on the following substantial questions of law; '1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to higher depreciation on UPS on the ground that it was an energy saving device? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by granting higher depreciation on UPS especially when UPS is not an integral part of the computer and depreciation is to be allowed only on the ground that it is general plant and machinery? 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) on the payments made to non resident without deduction of tax at source? and 4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the amounts are deemed to have accrued or arisen in India as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act and tax had not been deducted at source and Section 195 comes into play?” 3. When the matters were 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 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 are less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016 for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are 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.] 22.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai 600 101. 3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016 T.C.A.Nos. 58 and 59 of 2016 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis