Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of vs M/S.Jray Mcdermott Engineering on 19 January, 2021
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
TCA.No.43 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.1.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal No.43 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.JRay McDermott Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-96 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.1371/Mds/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12.
For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, JSC Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.43 of 2021 the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 23.10.2018 made in I.T.A.No.1371/Mds/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2011-12.
2. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law:
“Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the MAT credit should be set off against the tax payable for the present year and thereafter on the balance tax only, the surcharge and education cess had to be computed and levied?”
3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Revenue.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.43 of 2021 this case is less than the threshold limit.
5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law raised is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.
19.1.2021 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. RS 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.43 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J RS TCA.No.43 of 2021 19.1.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/