Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Rane (Madras) Ltd on 2 February, 2021
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.1785 of 2021 in T.C.A.No.102 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ...Appellant in both cases
Vs
M/s.Rane (Madras) Ltd.,
'Maithri', 132, Cathedral Road,
Chennai - 600 086.
PAN: AACCR9772M ...Respondent in both cases
COMMON PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order dated 27.04.2018 made in ITA.No.2789/Mds/2017
for the assessment year 2011-12 and ITA.No.2788/Chny/2017 for the
assessment year 2009-10 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
(in both cases)
For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
These appeals, filed by the Revenue, are directed against the order
dated 27.04.2018 made in ITA.No.2789/Mds/2017 for the assessment year
2011-12 and ITA.No.2788/Chny/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 on
the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, Chennai.
('The Tribunal' for brevity).
2. The appellant-Revenue in both the appeals has raised the
following substantial questions of law for consideration:
"1. Whether the Tribunal was right in
deleting the additions made u/s.40(a)(i) especially
when explanation to Section 9(2) was introduced
with retrospective effect from 01.06.1976 which
clearly holds that even if the non resident has no
business connection in India and has not rendered
any service in India, still the income would be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
deemed to have accrued or arisen in India and
therefore taxable?
2. Whether the disallowance made
u/s.40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act on payments
made for logistics services rendered outside India
is not taxable even though the same falls under
the ambit of fees for technical services as per
Section 9(1)(vii) of the I.T Act?'
3. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan, learned
counsel for the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the
appellant 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 this case is less than the threshold limit.
5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of
law framed is 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 file a
petition before this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on
merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
02.02.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Madras 'C' Bench,
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J
AND
R.N.MANJULA,J
hvk
T.C.A.Nos.102 & 105 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.1785 of 2021 in T.C.A.No.102 of 2021
02.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
