COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.EDEN EXPORTS COMPANY

T.C.A.No.778 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.778 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle-9 Chennai

.. Appellant Vs. M/s.Eden Exports Company 1-G, Jamal's Fent Court Balar Kalvi Avenue, Ritherdon Road Vepery, Chennai 600 007 PAN : AAAFE 9921G .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2121/Mds/2015. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan Mrs.V.Pushpa

Standing Counsels For Respondent : Mr.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.778 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 30.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2121/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. By order dated 08.11.2016, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act are applicable only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on 31st March of the relevant previous and it cannot be invoked to disallow expenditure which had been actually paid during the previous year, without deduction of tax at source ? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not applying the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sikandarkhan N Tunvar reported in 33 Taxman.com 133 and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crescent Export Syndicate reported in 33 Taxman.com 256 wherein it was held that such a disallowance can be made even qua the sum already paid and not only those remain payable?” 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.778 of 2016 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsels 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 Counsels 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 Income Tax Officer Business Ward-VI(2), Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-X Chennai 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.778 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya Tax Case Appeal No.778 of 2016 25.08.2022

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