COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BAGHMAR FINANCE LTD.,

TCA.Nos.960 & 961/2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal Nos.960 & 961 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Baghmar Finance Ltd., Chennai-79. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 23.8.2013 made respectively in ITA.Nos.1244 and 1257/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J)

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.A.S. Sriraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.960 & 961/2015 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 23.8.2013 made respectively in ITA.Nos.1244 and 1257/Mds/ 2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench (for short, the Tribunal) for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 3. The appeals were admitted on 24.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company was the owner of the asset and entitled to depreciation of Rs.77,71,276/- and Rs.15,81,179 respectively ? ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the transfer of windmill to the assessee, by which, the assessee claimed ownership was a genuine transaction ? And iii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the cost of one windmill had to be allocated on pro- rata basis out of total cost of Rs.81 Crores alleged incurred by M/s.Surana Industries Ltd.? ” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.960 & 961/2015 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 the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law raised are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 16.6.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.960 & 961/2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS TCA.Nos.960 & 961 of 2015 16.6.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in