Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S.Flowserve Sanmar Ltd on 22 July, 2021
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Flowserve Sanmar Ltd.,
9, Cathedral Road,
Chennai – 600 086. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
“C” Bench, dated 27.11.2015 in I.TA.No.1735/Mds/2015, Assessment
Year 2005-06.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkat Narayanan for
M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, 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 27.11.2015 made in I.TA.No.1735/Mds/2015 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2005-06.
3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions
of law:
“1.Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal
was right in law in holding that the disallowance
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
under Section 40A can override the provisions of
Sec.40-A(7) when squarely covered under Section 43
B(b), the deduction which is otherwise allowable
under any other provisions of the Income Tax Act?
2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad
especially when the assessee has claimed as a
deduction based on a provision for gratuity which
was not paid before the due date for filing of the
return in the assessment year 2005-06 which is
against the statute and is contrary to law?”
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.
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
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 questions of law framed are 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.]
22.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
T.C.A.No.406 of 2016
22.07.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
