THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S ALPUMP LTD

T.C.A.Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant in all T.C.As Vs. M/s.Alpump Ltd. No.17-172, Industrial Estate Perungudi Chennai 600 096 PAN : AACCA5365M

.. Respondent in all T.C.As Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.30/Mds/2013, 31/Mds/2013, 32/Mds/2013 and 33/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar in all T.C.As Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.30/Mds/2013, 31/Mds/2013, 32/Mds/2013 and 33/Mds/2013, for the respective assessment years 2003-04 to 2006-07. 2. By order dated 13.11.2018, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether the brought forward depreciation and the business losses of the amalgamated company are to be allowed especially when the assessee failed to submit the requisite Form 62 along with the return of income as mandated under Section 72A(2)(ii) read with Rule 9C(b) of the Income Tax Rules? (ii) Whether the surplus of assets received over and above the face value of the shares issued consequent to amalgamation of M/s.Gray Cast P. Ltd., with that of the assessee's company are receipts falling under capital field or is to be treated as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? and (iii) Whether a sum of Rs.84.92 lakhs transferred by the assessee company to its general reserve consequent to 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 amalgamation is taxable under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 3. When these 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 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. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 17.08.2022

gya R. MAHADEVAN, J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle-I(1) Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IX Chennai 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai T.C.A.Nos.585 to 588 of 2018 17.08.2022

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