Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S. Panasonic Home Appliances ... on 25 June, 2021
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE: 25.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 & 1 of 2015
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
v.
M/s. Panasonic Home Appliances India
Company Limited,
No.5, Sholavaram Village,
Ponnery Taluk, Chennai – 600 067. ... 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 06.01.2012 in ITA.No.718/Mds/2010 for the
Assessment Year 2005-2006.
For Appellant : Mr.T. Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.)
We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the appellant/Revenue and Mr. R. Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel
for the respondent.
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 06.01.2012 made in ITA.No.718/Mds/2010 on the file of the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, "C" Bench (for brevity, the
Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2005-2006.
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 Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the royalty
payment at fixed percentage of the net invoice value
is to be treated as Revenue expenditure?
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
2. Is not the payment for royalty for use of
Technical assistance which is intangible property
acquired by the assessee under the head knowhow
paid to the foreign collaborators is a capital
expenditure and depreciation under Section 32(ii)
allowable at 25%?
3. Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal was right in holding that the entire royalty
payment in respect of electric rice cookers is
allowable as revenue expenditure?”.
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.
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
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 question 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.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
Index : Yes/No 25.06.2021
Internet : Yes
gv
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai,"C" Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
R.HEMALATHA,J
gv
T.C.A.No.605 of 2014
and
M.P.Nos.1 of 2014 & 1 of 2015
25.06.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
