THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. EAGLE PRESS

T.C.A.No.689 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.689 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant Vs. M/s.Eagle Press No.35, M.S.Koil Street Royapuram, Chennai 600 013 PAN : AABFE9151B .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1248/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar

Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S.Sridhar 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.689 of 2016 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 28.08.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1248/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. By order dated 26.09.2016, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the order passed under Section 263 directing the AO to initiate penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) is not valid ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the machinery were put to use for more than 180 days and were entitled to full depreciation especially when the same were not used for more than 180 days ? 3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the payment of CENVAT was made by the assessee only on 04.10.2010 after examination by the customs officials which itself would clearly prove that the machinery were put to use for a period of less than 6 months?” 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.689 of 2016 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 appeal 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 this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is 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.] Internet : Yes 25.08.2022 gya To 1.The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range-X, Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai-IX, Chennai-6 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.689 of 2016 MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya Tax Case Appeal No.689 of 2016 25.08.2022

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