THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S RR DONNELLEY PUBLISHING

Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.10.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.717 of 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Appellant Vs. M/s.RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., C10 & 11, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Tk. PAN: AADCR2569R Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA No.909/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatnarayanan J U D G M E N T (Delivered by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, ACJ) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA No.909/Mds/2016, for the Assessment Year 2008-2009, by raising the http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 2/5 following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the balance depreciation is allowable in the 2nd year of acquisition of assets since only 50% was claimed in the first year as the machinery was put to use for less than 180 days? ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by allowing the balance 50% of the depreciation in the year other than the year of installation especially when there is no provision under the Income Tax Act for carry forward of the balance depreciation and claim the same? iii) Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by allowing 50% of the additional depreciation in the subsequent year when Section 32(1)(iia) allows for and restricts the allowance to the year when the plant and machinery is acquired and installed? iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the AO to grant remaining part of additional depreciation in the subsequent asst. year when such allowance was granted only by Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1.4.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5 whereas the impugned asst. year is 2008-09 and therefore said provision was not applicable?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, 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). 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (V.K.,ACJ.)(C.S.N.,J) 1.10.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 4/5 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Company Circle-V(4), Chennai-34. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACJ. and C.SARAVANAN, J. ssk. T.C.(A) No.717 of 2019 1.10.2019. http://www.judis.nic.in