Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1000 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 January, 2021
TCA.No.566 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.01.2021
CORAM :
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM
and
The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA
Tax Case Appeal No.566 of 2019
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 3,
Chennai. ...Appellant
Vs
M/s.Trio Shipping Services Private Limited,
No.34, Gopal Street,
T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.
PAN: AABCT2299N ...Respondent
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the
order dated 22.03.2019 made in ITA.No.1779/Chny/2018 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year
2011-12.
For Appellant: M/s.V.Pushpa
Standing Counsel
For Respondent: M/s.Harshni Jyothiraman
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
TCA.No.566 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order 22.03.2019
made in ITA.No.1779/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the assessment
year 2011-12.
2. The appellant was admitted on 08.08.2019 on the following
substantial questions of law for consideration:
“i.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 37(1) by holding that the commission payments were not doubted by the Lower Authorities, when the same was doubted by both the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)?
ii.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.566 of 2019
commission payment made by the assessee to the tune of Rs.1,60,50,000/- under Section 37(1) when the assessee could not produce any evidence for the justification of the payment?”
3. We have heard M/s.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the
Appellant – Revenue and M/s.Harshni Jyothiraman, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.566 of 2019
T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J
cse
5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is
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 file a petition
before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No
costs.
(T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
18.01.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment cse
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai.
TCA.No.566 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!