PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF IN vs. PRAKASH IMPEX

TCA.No.93 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.01.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.93 of 2021 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600034. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Prakash Impex, 58E, (N/P), SIDCO Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600098. PAN: AAAFP5388G ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 31.08.2017 made in ITA.No.1288/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2012-13. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.93 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) This appeal, filed by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated 31.08.2017 made in ITA.No.1288/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appellant-Revenue has raised the following substantial question of law for consideration: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deleting the disallowance of commission amounting to Rs.82,17,946/- paid to non-resident agent, by holding that the provisions of Sec.40(a)(ia) r.w.s 195 are not applicable to the facts of the present case?" 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.93 of 2021 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing 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 08.08.2019 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. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 25.01.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.93 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600034. TCA.No.93 of 2021 25.01.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/