TCA.No.548 of 2015 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.6.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.548 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-86 ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 28.8.2013 made in ITA.No.1094/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for assessment year 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC & Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.N.V.Balaji Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for respondent assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.548 of 2015 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, Act) is directed against order dated 28.8.2013 made in ITA.No.1094/Mds/2012 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench (for brevity, Tribunal) for assessment year 2008-09. 3. appeal has been admitted on 22.7.2015 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that expenditure towards recreation club and sports club is not in nature of fringe benefit and therefore deleted additions made especially when same is covered under Section 115WB(M)(N) ? 2. Is not finding of Tribunal bad, especially when statute had not differentiated about expenditure incurred on clubs maintained by employer or club maintained by third persons while dealing with fringe benefit tax ? 3. Whether finding of Tribunal was proper in holding that travel expenditure incurred for business purpose does not attract FBT? and 4. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case, fringe benefit tax paid on employee 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.548 of 2015 stock option plan liability towards on short payment of advance tax paid no interest is to be charged under Section 115WJ(3) ?" 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeal is not pursued by Revenue on account of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. By said Circular, monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeal before High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that tax effect in this case is less than threshold limit. 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions of law framed are left open. In event tax effect is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make mention to this Court to restore appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. 16.6.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.548 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J RS TCA.No.548 of 2015 16.6.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd