THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER O vs. M/S.MINICA SERVICES PRIVATE

TCA.No.94 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.2.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.94 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle IV(3), Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Minica Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-2 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.4.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.165/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman Judgment was delivered by

T.S.SIVAGNANAM

This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.94 of 2021 dated 13.4.2017 made in I.T.A.No.165/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law: “1. Whether, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in deleting the disallowance of Rs.96,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer by holding that the value of amenities received by the assessee which have been separately quantified and identified in the rental agreement, are to be treated as income from house property ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in treating the value of amenities of Rs.96,00,000/- as income from house property, while Clause 3 of the rental agreement is in direct contradiction to this and states that the licensee shall, for the permitted use of the licensed premises pay to the licensor compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- per month as rent for scheduled premises and Rs.8,00,000/- per month for all the amenities 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.94 of 2021 provided subject to deduction of tax at source under the Income Tax Act, 1961......? and 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the particular case, the Tribunal is justified in relying on the decision passed by the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shambu Investments P. Ltd. Vs. CIT [reported in (2003) 263 ITR 143], in which, the facts are clearly distinguishable from the assessee's case ?” 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for the respondent/assessee. 4. The learned 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. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.94 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS 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 raised 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 file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 01.2.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.94 of 2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/