PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.INTEGRATED ENTERPRISES L

TCA.No.814 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No. 814 of 2016 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034

.. Appellant Versus M/s.Integrated Enterprises Ltd., No.5-A, Kences Towers, No.1, Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.

.. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, dated 9.12.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.1837/Mds/2011 in respect of assessment year 2002-03. For Appellant : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.S. Sridhar 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.814 of 2016 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, in ITA. No.1837/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2002-03. 2. On 05.12.2016, this tax case appeal is admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law; ' 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in allowing the assessee to change its method of valuation of closing stock consistently followed in the earlier years and not following the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT – vs – Hindustan Zinc Ltd (291 ITR 391)? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the provision made by assessee towards diminution in value of stock-in-trade while computing the book profit under section 115JB of the Act? 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.814 of 2016 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in holding that the provision made by assessee towards diminution in value of stock-in- trade cannot be added to book profit under section 115JB when the Explanation (1)(i) to section 115JB of the Act expressly provides for such addition? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that the Cost Inflation Index pertaining to the year of purchase of asset to be taken while computing capital gains as against the Cost Inflation index pertaining to the year of conversion of such assets from stock-in-trade to investment?” 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 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). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.814 of 2016 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 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.] 16.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai. 2. The Assisstant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle II(3), Chennai-34. 3. The Commissioner of Income-Tax,(Appeals)-III, Chennai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.814 of 2016 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.No. 814 of 2016 16.08.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis