COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S YOUNGSHIN AUTOMOTIVE

PDF · subscribers
TCA/84/2018HC Madras28 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific issue of whether customs duty and adjustment should be allowed while determining ALP was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 01.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2012-13 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the determination of Arms Length Price (ALP). The assessee is M/s. Youngshin Automotive India Private Limited. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law concerning the inclusion of customs duty and adjustment in ALP calculation. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's order in ITA.No.3266/MDS/2016.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing customs duty and adjustment while determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962? The Revenue contended that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the merits of the ALP determination.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 92C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.84 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.84 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Youngshin Automotive India Private Limited, Survey No.307, 310, 317, Vayalur Road, killai Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District - 602 105 PAN: AAACY4007A ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 01.05.2017 made in ITA.No.3266/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent : Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Sandeep Bagmar, learned counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.84 of 2018 respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 01.05.2017 made in ITA.No.3266/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2012-13. 3.This appeal was admitted on 03.04.2018 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in allowing customs duty and adjustment while determining the Arms Length Price (ALP) under Section 92C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Rule 10B of the Income Tax Rules, 1962?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is 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 this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.84 of 2018 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Youngshin Automotive India Private Limited, Survey No.307, 310, 317, Vayalur Road, killai Village, Sriperambudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District - 602 105 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.84 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.84 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 92C

All 1,769 judgments and leading authorities on Section 92C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →