Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Sahuwala Flour Mills on 18 June, 2021
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Sahuwala Flour Mills
No.56, Namiah Maistry Street,
Tondiarpet, Chennai – 600 081. ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
“B” Bench, dated 05.01.2012 in I.TA.No.1784/Mds/2011, Assessment
Year 2008-09.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanasamy
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.J.Narayanasamy, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, 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 05.01.2012 made in I.TA.No.1784/Mds/2011 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2008-09.
3.The appeal was admitted on 10.04.2014 on the following
substantial questions of law:
“1.Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40(a)(ia)
is not attracted even though TDS amount had not
been deducted and paid?
2.Whether it was proper for the Tribunal and
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
had enough material to dismiss the appeal of the
Revenue especially when the payments were made on
account of rendering services and facilitating
supply/procurement is not for supply of any product?
3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the
contract entered by the assessee was not a service
contract and no TDS was required to be deducted
under Section 194C?”
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.
5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeal
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
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.]
18.06.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
M.DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
T.C.A.No.735 of 2013
18.06.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
