THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S.AVT MC CORMICK INGREDIEN

TCA.Nos.752-754/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.752 to 754 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.16288 & 16289 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.AVT MC Cormick Ingredients Ltd., Chennai-8. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 19.2.2016 made in ITA.Nos.2167 to 2169/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R. Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.752-754/2016 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 19.2.2016 made in ITA.Nos.2167 to 2169/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2008-09. 3. The appeals were admitted on 14.11.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the RBI approval of the royalty rate itself implies that the payment of royalty is at arms' length price ? and ii. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper especially when the Transfer Pricing Officer has mentioned under Section 92CA(3) in a control transaction involved with Associate Enterprise and had arrived at a upward adjustment on account of price variation of product computed under comparable uncontrolled price method?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.752-754/2016 the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, the connected CMPs are also dismissed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.)

30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.752-754/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.752 to 754 of 2016 & CMP.Nos.16288 & 16289 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in