Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Tallboy Stationery Private ... on 18 August, 2021
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2021
CORAM
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.Nos.807 and 808 of 2016
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 3(1),
Chennai. .. Appellant in both Appeals
-vs-
M/s.Tallboy Stationery Private Limited,
New No.130, Old No.34,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Aminjikarai, Chennai-600 029.
PAN: AACCT 3483H .. Respondent in both Appeals
Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 29.04.2016 made in I.T.A.Nos.2291 & 2292/Mds/2015 on the
file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the
assessment years 2011-12 and 2008-09 respectively.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan,
(In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel &
Ms.V.Pushpa,
Junior Standing Counsel
_________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
For Respondent : Ms.S.Sriniranjani,
(In both Appeals)
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.)
These appeals, by the appellant/Revenue, filed under Section 260A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the order dated 29.04.2016,
made in I.T.A.Nos.2291 & 2292/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2011-12
and 2008-09 respectively.
2.The appeals were admitted on 16.11.2016, on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“(i) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in
holding that the addition could not have been made by
the Assessing Officer in the hands of the Assessee
company as it was not a registered shareholder of
M/s.Chennai Micro Prints Private Limited from which
Assessee received loan/advance? and
_________
Page 2 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Tribunal correctly interpreted the
provisions of Section 2(22)(e) in the light of the
clarification given by the Board vide Circular No.495
dated 22.9.1987?”
3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and
Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue
and Ms.S.Sriniranjani, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue
submits that the above appeals are 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
these cases is less than the threshold limit.
_________
Page 3 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
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
framed 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 make a
mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on
merits. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
18.08.2021
Index: Yes/ No
Speaking Order : Yes/ No
abr
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai.
_________
Page 4 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
T.S.Sivagnanam, J.
and
Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J.
(abr)
T.C.A.Nos.807 & 808 of 2016
18.08.2021
_________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
