The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Central IV, Chennai v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd
[Citation -2020-LL-0316-23]

Citation 2020-LL-0316-23
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Central IV, Chennai
Respondent Name Tulsyan NEC Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/03/2020
Assessment Year 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags disallowance of interest on loan • monetary limit • tax effect


Order in TCA No.2 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd.) dated 16.03.2020 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) No.2 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-II Central IV, Chennai Appellant Vs. M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd 3, Apex Plaza, MG Road Nungambakkam, Chennai-34. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 13.10.2010 in ITA No.1420/Mds/2009. For Appellant : Ms.K.G.Usha Rani Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.V.S.Jayakumar JUDGMENT (Judgment of Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, by raising following substantial question of law: Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.2 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd.) dated 16.03.2020 Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Income Tax Tribunal was right in law in holding that disallowance of interest on loan for construction amounting to Rs.47,13,216/- was to be allowed for assessment year 2003-04? 2. When matter was taken up for hearing, learned 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 cases, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate case. (V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 16.03.2020 KST Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.2 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd.) dated 16.03.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai. Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA No.2 of 2016 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Tulsyan NEC Ltd.) dated 16.03.2020 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J. KST T.C.(A) No.2 of 2016 16.03.2020 Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Central IV, Chennai v. Tulsyan NEC Ltd
Report Error