Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Olympic Cards Ltd on 6 December, 2021
Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A. Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021
and
CMP No. 19285 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai .. Appellant in both TCAs
Versus
M/s. Olympic Cards Ltd
165, NSC Bose Road
Chennai – 600 001
PAN : AAGPPCO3651L .. Respondent in both TCAs
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench,
Chennai dated 21.09.2016 passed in I.T.A.Nos. 1211/Mds/2014 and
1212/Mds/2014 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 21.09.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/4
Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021
Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1211/Mds/2014 and 1212/Mds/2014,
relating to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, by raising the following
substantial questions of law:-
1.Whether the Tribunal ought to have followed the
judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Palam Gas Services Vs
CIT in Civil Appeal No. 551 of 2017 by an order dated 03.05.2017
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the disallowance
stipulated in Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS u/s.194C is
one of consequence for default and though there is difference
between paid and payable Sec.40(a)(ia) covers not only those cases
where the amount is payable but also when it is paid?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in remitting the issue
especially when Section 40(a)(ia) covers not only the amounts
which are payable as on 31st March of particular year but also
amounts paid at any time during the year?
3. Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is
proper especially when Sec.40(a)(ia) on which tax is deductible at
source under Chapter – XVI-B makes it clear that it will applies to
all expenses when the legislature has used the word “payable” and
not paid or credited?”
2. When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/4
Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021
No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein,
it is stipulated that appeals 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.
3. 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
06.12.2021
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
dhk/Maya
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chennai “A” Bench.
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 3/4
Tax Case Appeal Nos. 535 and 536 of 2021
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
dhk/Maya
T.C.A.Nos. 535 & 536 of 2021
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/4
