Commissioner of Income-tax, Ward-V(1), Chennai v. Seetharaman
[Citation -2019-LL-0805-88]

Citation 2019-LL-0805-88
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Ward-V(1), Chennai
Respondent Name Seetharaman
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 05/08/2019
Assessment Year 1998-99
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags low tax effect
Bot Summary: Appellant Vs Mrs.Seetharaman ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 24.10.2008 made respectively in ITA.Nos. 207 and 208/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 24.10.2008 made respectively in ITA.Nos. The above appeals were admitted on 03.11.2009 on the following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer in view of Sections 199 and 194C of the Income Tax Act ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in accepting the nine agreement copies out of 120 clients, which are not related to the assessment years under consideration And iii. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue submits that these appeals may be dismissed on account of low tax effect. Recording the said submission, the above tax case appeals are dismissed.


In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 05.8.2019 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.797 & 798 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward V(1), Chennai. Appellant Vs Mrs.Seetharaman ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order dated 24.10.2008 made respectively in ITA.Nos.207 and 208/Mds/2008 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC & Ms.K.G.Usharani, SC For Respondent: Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel as well as Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthilkumar, learned counsel appearing for 2 respondent assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against common order dated 24.10.2008 made respectively in ITA.Nos.207 and 208/ Mds/2008 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench for assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000. 3. above appeals were admitted on 03.11.2009 on following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in deleting additions made by Assessing Officer in view of Sections 199 and 194C of Income Tax Act ? ii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in accepting nine agreement copies out of 120 clients, which are not related to assessment years under consideration ? And iii. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in non consideration of specific ground Nos.2.1 to 2.6 raised before it ? http://www.judis.nic.in 3 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for Revenue submits that these appeals may be dismissed on account of low tax effect. 5. Recording said submission, above tax case appeals are dismissed. substantial questions of law are left open. However, liberty is granted to Revenue to restore appeals if it is found that cases would fall under any of exceptional circumstances stipulated in circular of Central Board of Direct Taxes. No costs. 05.8.2019 Internet: Yes To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS http://www.judis.nic.in 4 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.Nos.797 & 798 of 2009 05.8.2019 Commissioner of Income-tax, Ward-V(1), Chennai v. Seetharaman
Report Error