Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Unknown on 23 June, 2021
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 23.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Ward -2 (2)
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. ... Appellant
v.
M/s Infac India Private Limited,
No.113, Ellaimannan Koil Street,
Padappai, Kanchipuram – 601 301
PAN : AADCS 4890C . ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras,
"D" Bench, dated 05.10.2018 in IT(TP)A No.27/Chny/2018 for the
Assessment Year 2014-2015.
For Appellant : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. Raghunathan
JUDGMENT
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. Raghunathan, 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 05.10.2018 made in IT(TP)A No.27/Chny/2018 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "D" Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2014-2015.
3. The appellant has raised the following substantial question of
law in the above appeal:-
“(i). Whether as per Rule 10B(2) of
the Income Tax Rules permits the adopting of
different/inconsistent comparability criteria for the
purpose of selection of different comparables namely
insistence on segmental profits excluding the two
wheeler & three wheeler segment in the case of
Remsons Ltd, a low margin comparable which is also
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
engaged in two and three wheeler segment?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in
directing the TPO to adopt segmental margins of
Suprajit Engineering for comparability analysis when
the said segmental details are not available with the
comparable company ?
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in
rendering different decisions with respect to the
comparable Suprajit Engineering on the same set of
facts in the case of assessee for year to year (from
AY 2012-13 to AY 2014-15) violating the principle
of uniformity and consistency as upheld by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Galileo
Nederland BV vs ADIT [2014] 367 ITR 319/51
taxmann.com 419/[2015] 228 Taxmann 11?”
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
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
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
is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The
substantial questions of law framed is 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.]
Index : Yes/No 23.06.2021
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai,"D" Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA,J
Rj
T.C.A.No.325 of 2021
23.06.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
