Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Shri.Thendiyakavo Koyakutty ... on 8 August, 2022
TCA.No.182 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No. 182 of 2021
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai 600 034 .. Appellant
Versus
Shri.Thendiyakavo Koyakutty Hassan,
No.18/3A, Menambedu Road,
Padi, Mannupet,
Chennai 600 050. .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench,
Chennai dated 06.03.2019 passed in ITA.No.1570/CHNY/2017 for the
assessment year 2012-13.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.182 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue,
questioning the correctness of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench Chennai in
ITA.No.1570/CHNY/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13, on the following
substantial questions of law;
' 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the
case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in holding that
the crawler cranes fall in the category “Moto Lorries” used
in a business of running them on hire” and are eligible for
depreciation at higher rate of 30%?
2. Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case
and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is right in not following the
jurisdictional high court decision in the case of CIT vs.
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. 254 ITR 558 (Madras)
wherein it was held that Mobile Cranes is not road
transport vehicle but an item of machinery?”
2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.182 of 2021
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
this appeal is less than the threshold limit.
3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said
to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping
open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.
No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
08.08.2022
msr
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Income Tax Officer,
Corporate Ward-4(1), Chennai-34.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8
Chennai-34
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.No.182 of 2021
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai.
T.C.A.No. 182 of 2021
08.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
