THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ADDISION & COMPANY LIMITED

T.C.A.No.89 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 18.07.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.89 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai

.. Appellant Vs. M/s.Addison & Company Limited 803, Anna Salai Chennai 600 002 PAN : AAACA5199H .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.791/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar For Respondent : Mr.Venkat Narayanan for Mr.Subburaya Aiyar 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.89 of 2017 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 05.08.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.791/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. By order dated 20.02.2017, 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 holding that the balance depreciation is allowable in the 2nd year of acquisition of assets since only 10% was claimed in the first year especially when there is no such express provisions in the I.T. Act to allow the balance left out Additional depreciation in the subsequent years ? (ii) Is it not the finding of the Tribunal bad by allowing the balance 50% of the depreciation in the year other than the year of installation especially when there is no provision under the Income Tax Act for carry forward of the balance depreciation and claim the same ?” 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.89 of 2017 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 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.] 18.07.2022

Internet : Yes

gya 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.89 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai' Tax Case Appeal No.89 of 2017 18.07.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis