Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 14682 Mad
Judgement Date : 18 August, 2022
T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle 1,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Versus
M/s. RMK Viswanatha Pillai & Sons
No.176F Trivandrum Road,
Tirunelveli 627 003.
PAN: AABFR 1307 C ... Respondent
Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1451/Mds/2016.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
Mrs.V.Pushpa, Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar
Page 1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1451/Mds/2016, relating to the
assessment year 2011-12.
2.By order dated 09.08.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in treating hospitality expenses (Bonus redemption expenses) as accrued liability, even though the incurring of liability fully depends upon the uncertain future visit of the customers, and there is no scientific method to estimate the future visit and purchase of customers?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting the addition of hospitality expenses (Bonus redemption expenses) rejecting the contention of the Revenue that the expenditure shown was only a contingent liability? "
3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular
Page 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes,
wherein, it is stipulated that appeal 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.
4.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 question of law for determination in an
appropriate case. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
18.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
Page 3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Chennai.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle- (1) (1), Chennai.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai.
T.C.A.No.445 of 2017
18.08.2022
Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!