THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF I vs. M/S. HELLOS AND MATHESON IN

T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-2(2), Room No.512, 5th Floor, Wanarpathy Block, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034. ... Appellant in both TCAs Versus M/s.Hellos & Matheson Information Tech. Ltd., No.9, Adwave Towers, South Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

... Respondent in both TCAs (PAN No.AAACE0805A) Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai dated 26.05.2017 in I.T.A.Nos.1669/Mds/2016 & 1670/Mds/2016. For Appellant in both TCAs' : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Page 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A.Nos.1669/Mds/2016 and 1670/Mds/2016, relating to the assessment years 2008-09 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. By order dated 06.12.2019, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the assessee is outside the scope of Section 14A of the Act as the investments were made in the subsidiary companies in the form of equity? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in holding that the investment made by the assessee in the subsidiary companies, is not for earning exempt income but because of commercial exepidency? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in restricting the provisions of Rule 8D for the purpose of computing the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act?" Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 3.When the matters were 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 these appeals 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 appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 26.08.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No r n s Page 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-6 Chennai. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(2), Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.940 & 941 of 2019 26.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis