Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals And ... on 23 August, 2022
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R. Mahadevan, Mohammed Shaffiq
T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.08.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Corporate Circle 3,
Chennai. ... Appellant in all TCAs
Versus
Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited,
No.534, East Coast Centre,
Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018.
PAN: AAACT 2770K ... Respondent in all TCAs
Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961,
against the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1931, 2052 and
2053/Mds/2017.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan
Senior Standing Counsel
Mrs. V.Pushpa,
Standing Counsel in all TCAs
Page 1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.Nos.1931, 2052 and 2053/Mds/2017, relating to the respective assessment years 2009-10, 2012-13 and 2014-15.
2.By order dated 25.01.2019, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law:
“(i) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation even when there was no manufacturing activity carried out during the year and the requirement that the plant and machinery should be actually put to use for the purpose of business as prescribed under Section 32 of the Income Tax Act has not been fulfilled? And
(ii) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition on account of belated remittance of employees PF/ESI contributions, which is to be treated as income as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when the assessee has not paid the said amount within the due date specified in the relevant Acts?"Page 2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019
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 is less than the threshold limit.
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs.
(R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.)
23.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
Page 3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3, Chennai.
3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle - 3(1), New Block, 4th Floor, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034.
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Chennai.
T.C.A.Nos.83 to 85 of 2019 23.08.2022 Page 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis