THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S CARBORANDUM UNIVERSAL

TCA.Nos.768 & 769/2016 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.768 & 769 of 2016 & CMP.No.16986 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Carborandum Universal Ltd., Chennai-1. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 01.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.250 and 298/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2002-03. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyer Padmanabhan 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. Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.768 & 769/2016 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 01.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.250 and 298/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2002-03. 3. The appeals were admitted on 01.11.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.768 of 2016 : i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction under Section 80HHC can be allowed even without reducing the deduction under Section 80IA ? and ii. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by considering the provisions of Section 80IA(9), which was introduced with effect from 01.4.1999? TCA.No.769 of 2016 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the miscellaneous income is to be excluded on net basis especially when the assessee has included all its income under the head 'business' only and therefore, the net component could be determined?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.768 & 769/2016 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 CMP is 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 'A' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.768 & 769/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.768 & 769 of 2016 & CMP.No.16986 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in