THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S.OPG RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT

T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 05.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.644 and 645 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant in both T.C.As Vs. M/s.OPG Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. No.6, Sardar Patel Road Guindy Chennai 600 032 PAN : AAACO9714A .. Respondent in both T.C.As Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1940 & 1941/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar in both T.C.As Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramachandran in both T.C.As 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016 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 order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1940 and 1941/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. By order dated 01.09.2016, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was eligible to claim deduction u/s.80 IA of the Income Tax Act? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding that for claiming deduction u/s.80 IA(4)(iv) assessee is not required to own a power generating unit? 3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and wrong, especially when the assessee is a works contractor, who operated the power plant set up by Kanisk Steel Industries Limited and supplied power to Kanisk Steel Industries Limited and therefore, hit by Explanation to Section 80 IA of the Income Tax Act?” 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016 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.] 05.08.2022

Index : Yes / No gya 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 2.The Income Tax Officer Company Ward V(1) Chennai 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Chennai 4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016 05.08.2022

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