Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii vs M/S.Sify E-Learning Limited on 23 August, 2022
Author: R. Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
T.C.A.No.82 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 23.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.82 of 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax-III
Chennai .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.SIFY e-Learning Limited
(Formerly known as M/s.Satyam Education Services Ltd.)
III Floor, Tidel Park
4 Canan Bank Road
Taramani, Chennai 600 113 .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1954/Mds/2007.
For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
T.C.A.No.82 of 2010
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 26.05.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1954/Mds/2007, relating to the assessment year 2003-04.
2. By order dated 22.02.2010, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeal 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 licence fee paid to M/s.Sun Micro Systems Private Ltd., was revenue expenditure and was therefore allowable and in further holding that the assessee was justified in spreading over the same over a period of three years?
(2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the development fee paid to M/s.Element K India Pvt. Ltd., was allowable as revenue expenditure and the assessee was justified in claiming amortization of the same over a period of three years?
(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the action of the assessee in not recognizing income to the tune of Rs.39,68,208/- was justified even though the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting as per which the assessee had to recognize the income at the point of raising the sale invoice?” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4 T.C.A.No.82 of 2010
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing 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 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 Standing 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.]
23.08.2022
Internet : Yes
gya
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3/4
T.C.A.No.82 of 2010
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
To
1.The Commissioner of Income Tax-III Chennai
2.The Income Tax Officer (OSD) Company Circle VI(3) Chennai
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai
4.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai Tax Case Appeal No.82 of 2010 23.08.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4