Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 1/5 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 1.10.2019 CORAM HONOURABLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case (Appeal) No.717 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai Appellant Vs. M/s.RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd., C10 & 11, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Tk. PAN: AADCR2569R Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA No.909/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatnarayanan JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr.VINEET KOTHARI, ACJ) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 24.8.2016 made in ITA No.909/Mds/2016, for Assessment Year 2008-2009, by raising http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 2/5 following substantial questions of law: "i) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that balance depreciation is allowable in 2nd year of acquisition of assets since only 50% was claimed in first year as machinery was put to use for less than 180 days? ii) Is not finding of Tribunal bad by allowing balance 50% of depreciation in year other than year of installation especially when there is no provision under Income Tax Act for carry forward of balance depreciation and claim same? iii) Whether reasoning and finding of Tribunal is proper by allowing 50% of additional depreciation in subsequent year when Section 32(1)(iia) allows for and restricts allowance to year when plant and machinery is acquired and installed? iv) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in directing AO to grant remaining part of additional depreciation in subsequent asst. year when such allowance was granted only by Finance Act, 2016 with effect from 1.4.2016 http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 3/5 whereas impugned asst. year is 2008-09 and therefore said provision was not applicable?" 2. When matter is taken up for admission, 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.,ACJ.)(C.S.N.,J) 1.10.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No ssk. To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 4/5 2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Company Circle-V(4), Chennai-34. http://www.judis.nic.in Judgt. dt. 1.10.19 in T.C.A.717/19 CIT v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd. 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, ACJ. and C.SARAVANAN, J. ssk. T.C.(A) No.717 of 2019 1.10.2019. http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. RR Donnelley Publishing India Pvt. Ltd