Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax-I vs M/S.Ip Rings Limited on 28 January, 2020
Author: V.K
Bench: Vineet Kothari, R.Suresh Kumar
Judgt. dt. 28.1.2020 in T.C.A.359 to 362/2011
CIT-I v. IP Rings Ltd.
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.1.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Tax Case (A) Nos.359 to 362 of 2011
Commissioner of Income Tax-I,
Chennai. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.IP Rings Limited,
Arjay Apex Centre,
24, College Road,
Chennai 600 006. Respondent
Tax Cases filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench,
Chennai, dated 25.2.2011 made in ITA Nos.1687/Mds/2010,
1688/Mds/2010, 1689/Mds/2010 and 1690/Mds/2010.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.P.Venkatnarayanan for
M/s.Subbaraya Iyer
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Cases have been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 25.2.2011 made in ITA Nos.1687/Mds/2010, 1688/Mds/2010, 1689/Mds/2010 and http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 28.1.2020 in T.C.A.359 to 362/2011 CIT-I v. IP Rings Ltd.
2/41690/Mds/2010, for the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, by raising the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) was justified in restricting the disallowance of royalty payment to the foreign company to 25% only as capital expenditure and allowing 75% of the royalty as revenue expenditure without appreciating that the terms of the agreement conferred an enduring advantage to the assessee and therefore the entire payment fell in the capital field?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in not adjudicating the grounds raised by the Revenue to the effect that from the assessment year 1999-2000 the Income Tax Act had been amended by granting depreciation on intangible assets treated as a separate "block of assets" and therefore the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Southern http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 28.1.2020 in T.C.A.359 to 362/2011 CIT-I v. IP Rings Ltd.3/4
Switchgear Ltd. (232 ITR 539) was not applicable in the facts of the instant case?"
2. When the matters are taken up for hearing, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, 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).
3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.
(V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.)
28.1.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssk.
To
1. Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Chennai.
2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 28.1.2020 in T.C.A.359 to 362/2011 CIT-I v. IP Rings Ltd.4/4
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.
and R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
ssk.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle II(3), Chennai 600 034.
4. M/s.IP Rings Limited, Arjay Apex Centre, 24, College Road, Chennai 600 006.
TCA Nos.359 to 362 of 2011 28.1.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in