Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.C.H.Robinson Worldwide ... on 8 September, 2021
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle I(2),
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.C.H.Robinson Worldwide Freight India P Ltd,
No.18, Lokesh Towers,
No.4, 2nd Floor, Kodambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034 ... 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 01.06.2016 in I.TA.No.490/Mds/2015, Assessment Year 2009-10.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.)
We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan 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 (“the Act” for brevity) is directed against the order dated
01.06.2016 made in I.T.A.No.490/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “D” Bench (“the Tribunal” for brevity) for the
Assessment Year 2009-10.
3.The appellant/Revenue has raised the following substantial questions
of law in this appeal :
“1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that deprecation
is allowed on non complete fee at the rate of 25%?
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
2)Is not the reasoning & finding of the Tribunal bad
and perverse especially when the functions of the assessee
and that of the Hyderabad Meizes Cargo P Ltd are different
and therefore cannot be compared with one another for
arriving at Arms Length Price?
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 is
dismissed 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
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided
on merits. No costs.
(T.S.S., J.) (S.S.K., J.)
08.09.2021
jeni/mkn
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
To
1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “D” Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle I(2),
Chennai.
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J.
and
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J.
jeni/mkn
T.C.A.No.455 of 2021
08.09.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
