Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mr.R.S.Suriya on 8 April, 2021
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II,
No.108, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
Mr.R.S.Suriya
15/17, Krishna Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B”
Bench, dated 08.04.2015 in I.TA.No.1241/Mds/2013, Assessment Year
2009-10.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
Page 1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel
for the respondent/assessee.
2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order
dated 08.04.2015 made in I.TA.No.1241/Mds/2013 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2009-10.
3.The appeal was admitted on 24.11.2015 on the following
substantial question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the
amount received as advance as per the agreements entered
into by the assessee with different film producers, promising to
render professional services were not taxable as income, even
though the assessee was following cash system of accounting?”
Page 2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
4.The learned Senior 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 08.08.2019 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is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect
in this case 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
08.04.2021
(1/2)
mkn
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Page 3/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II,
No.108, Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai – 600 034.
Page 4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
T.C.A.No.967 of 2015
08.04.2021
(1/2)
Page 5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
