Madras High Court
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.Macro Marvel Projects Ltd on 18 September, 2020
Author: V.K
Bench: Vineet Kothari, Krishnan Ramasamy
Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016
PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd.
1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.9.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
Tax Case (Appeal) No.625 of 2016
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Chennai. Appellant
Vs.
M/s.Macro Marvel Projects Ltd.,
813, Glenden Place,
Poonamallee High Road,
Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
PAN: AAC CM 8816 D Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B'
Bench, Chennai, dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA No.2092/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Ms.Sumitha for Mr.R.Sivaraman
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA No.2092/Mds/2015, for the Assessment Year 2005-2006, by raising http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 2/5 the following substantial questions of law:
"(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) in the year under consideration as the statutory provisions are amply clear and in the context of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the term ‘payable’ would include amounts which are paid during the previous year?
(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the provision of section u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act cover only the amounts which are payable as on 31st March of a previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and not amounts which are payable at any time during the relevant previous year?
(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT erred in not appreciating and ignoring the ratio of decision in the case of Ryatar Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit v. CIT (2016) 67 taxmann.com 283 (Karnataka) wherein it is held that section 40(a)(ia) cannot be interpreted to mean that it http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd.3/5
applies only to amounts “payable” and not to those which have been “paid”?
(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in not appreciating and ignoring the ratio of decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Crescent Export Syndicate 216 Taxman 258(Cal) and CIT vs. Sekander Khan N Tunvar 33 Taxmann.com 133 (Gujarat) which constitutes ratio decidendi on the issue as discussed in order dated 02.08.2013 of Mumbai ITAT in the case of ACIT, Cir.4(2) Mumbai vs. Rishti Stock & Shares (P) Ltd - ITA No.112/Mum/2012 and further whether order of ITAT had turned perverse in view of ratio of decision in the case of Sudarshan Silk Sarees vs. CIT 306 ITR 205 (SC)?”
2. When the matter is 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). http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 4/5
3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.
(V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.)
18.9.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ssk.
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai.
2. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai.
3. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle IV(1), Chennai.
4. M/s.Macro Marvel Projects Ltd., 813, Glenden Place, Poonamallee High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai 600 010.
http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 18.9.2020 in T.C.A.625/2016 PCIT-4 v. Macro Marvel Projects Ltd. 5/5
DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.
and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
ssk.
T.C.(A) No.625 of 2016 18.9.2020.
http://www.judis.nic.in