The Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. R. Velammal
[Citation -2019-LL-0906-122]

Citation 2019-LL-0906-122
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem
Respondent Name R. Velammal
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 06/09/2019
Assessment Year 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 01/04/1999-19/01/2000
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags monetary limit • tax effect • cost of construction
Bot Summary: JUDGMENT This Tax Case has been filed by the Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.10.2006 made in IT(SS)A No.89/Mds/2004, for the Block Assessment Period from 1.4.1989 to 19.1.2000, by raising the following substantial questions of law: Judgt. 6.9.19 in T.C.1132/2008 CIT v. R.Velammal 2/4 i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in deleting the additions made on account of cost of construction ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Tribunal is right in not considering Section 158BB(ca) 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/-. 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is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 6.9.2019 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case No.1132 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax Salem Appellant Vs. R.Velammal Respondent Tax Case filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.10.2006 made in IT(SS)A No.89/Mds/2004. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Jr. Standing Counsel For Respondent : No appearance. JUDGMENT (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 13.10.2006 made in IT(SS)A No.89/Mds/2004, for Block Assessment Period from 1.4.1989 to 19.1.2000, by raising following substantial questions of law: Judgt. dt. 6.9.19 in T.C.1132/2008 CIT v. R.Velammal 2/4 "i) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in law in deleting additions made on account of cost of construction? ii) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal is right in not considering Section 158BB(ca)?" 2. When matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Standing Counsel brought to our notice Circular instruction issued by 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 Department before High Court in cases where tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). 3. In instant case, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 6.9.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 6.9.19 in T.C.1132/2008 CIT v. R.Velammal 3/4 To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Salem 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. 3. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle, Salem. Judgt. dt. 6.9.19 in T.C.1132/2008 CIT v. R.Velammal 4/4 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and C.SARAVANAN, J. ssk. T C No.1132 of 2008 6.9.2019. Commissioner of Income-tax, Salem v. R. Velammal
Report Error