THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S ASHOK LEYLAND LTD

T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant

Versus M/s. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032, PAN : AAACA 4651L ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2086/Mds/2010. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.805 of 2016

JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 16.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2086/Mds/2010, relating to the assessment year 2006-07.

2.By order dated 15.11.2016, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the additional depreciation under section 32(1) (iia) in an assessment year other than assessment year the new plant and machinery was acquired and installed? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by directing the Assessing Officer to grant balance part of the additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year when such allowance was granted only by Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2016 and the same was not applicable to the present assessment year which is 2006-07? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in estimating the disallowance under Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 section 14A at 2% of the exempt income against the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as per Rule 8D? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right and justified in directing the Assessing Officer to consider the revised Audit Report filed in Form 3CEB which is contrary to the provisions under Section 92E of the Income Tax Act? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under section 43B relating to the unit disposed off under the slum sale?" 3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned 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 counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 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.) 23.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax payer Unit, Chennai 600 101. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av T.C.A.No.805 of 2016 23.08.2022 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis