Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Brakes India Ltd on 22 August, 2022
TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.Nos. 58 and 59 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai .. Appellant in both appeals
Versus
M/s.Brakes India Ltd.,
Padi,
Chennai 600 050 ..Respondent in both appeals
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A”
Bench, Chennai, dated 06.01.2012 passed in respective ITA.Nos.1069 and
1166/Mds/2010 for the respective assessment years 2006-07 and 2006-07.
For Appellant in both cases : Mr. T. Ravikumar
Standing counsel
For Respondent in both cases : Mr.R. Venkata Narayanan
for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue,
questioning the correctness of the order dated 06.01.2012 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, in respective
ITA.Nos.1069 and 1166/Mds/2010 relating to respective assessment years
2006-07 and 2006-07
2. On 15.02.2016, the aforesaid tax case appeals were 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 assessee was entitled to higher
depreciation on UPS on the ground that it was an energy
saving device?
2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad by granting
higher depreciation on UPS especially when UPS is not an
integral part of the computer and depreciation is to be
allowed only on the ground that it is general plant and
machinery?
2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016
3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the
disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) on the payments
made to non resident without deduction of tax at source?
and
4. Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper
especially when the amounts are deemed to have accrued
or arisen in India as per the provisions of Section 9(1)(vii)
of the Income Tax Act and tax had not been deducted at
source and Section 195 comes into play?”
3. When the 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
3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016
for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are 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.]
22.08.2022
msr
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai 600 101.
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “A” Bench,
Chennai,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos58 and 59 of 2016
T.C.A.Nos. 58 and 59 of 2016
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
