Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Opg Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd on 5 August, 2022
T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 05.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal Nos.644 and 645 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai .. Appellant in both T.C.As
Vs.
M/s.OPG Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.
No.6, Sardar Patel Road
Guindy
Chennai 600 032
PAN : AAACO9714A .. Respondent in both T.C.As
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1940 & 1941/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
in both T.C.As Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ramachandran
in both T.C.As
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling
in question the correctness of the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.1940 and
1941/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
2. By order dated 01.09.2016, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeals on the following substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was
eligible to claim deduction u/s.80 IA of the Income Tax Act?
2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by holding that for
claiming deduction u/s.80 IA(4)(iv) assessee is not required to
own a power generating unit?
3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and
wrong, especially when the assessee is a works contractor, who
operated the power plant set up by Kanisk Steel Industries
Limited and supplied power to Kanisk Steel Industries Limited
and therefore, hit by Explanation to Section 80 IA of the Income
Tax Act?”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/4
T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016
3. When these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned
counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the notice of this court the
Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board Direct
Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the
Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in
these appeals are less than the threshold limit.
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to
be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping
open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.
No costs.
[R.M.D, J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
05.08.2022
Index : Yes / No
gya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/4
T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
To
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax
Chennai
2.The Income Tax Officer
Company Ward V(1)
Chennai
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8
Chennai
4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'A' Bench, Chennai T.C.A.Nos.644 & 645 of 2016
05.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
