Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Prasad and Company
[Citation -2020-LL-0617-45]

Citation 2020-LL-0617-45
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore
Respondent Name Prasad and Company
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/06/2020
Assessment Year 2009-10
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags claim of deduction • monetary limit • low tax effect • sub-contractor
Bot Summary: 1353/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2009-10. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in setting aside the claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act back to the assessing officer, when the assessing officer had considered the Construction Agreement entered by the assessee with the land owner which is purely a Works Contract and the same was confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) 2. 1198 of 2015 circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating that the construction work was outsourced to a sub-contractor and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.


TCA.No.1198 of 2015 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 17.06.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA Tax Case Appeal No.1198 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Prasad and Company, No.24, Gandhi Nagar 3rd Street, Tirupur-641 603. PAN: AAI FP 9785 H ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1353/Mds/2014 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, Junior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J. We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1198 of 2015 assisted by Ms.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant-Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for respondent-assessee. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 19.06.2015 made in I.T.A.No.1353/Mds/2014 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for assessment year 2009-10. 3. appeal was admitted on 21.12.2015 on following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal is correct in setting aside claim of deduction under Section 80IB(10) of Income Tax Act back to assessing officer, when assessing officer had considered Construction Agreement entered by assessee with land owner which is purely Works Contract and same was confirmed by CIT(Appeals)? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was right in claiming deduction as per explanation to Section 80IB(10) inserted by Finance Act, 2009 with effect from 1.4.2001? 3. Whether, on facts and in 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1198 of 2015 circumstances of case, Appellate Tribunal was right in not appreciating that construction work was outsourced to sub-contractor and therefore, assessee is not entitled for deduction under section 80IB(10) of Income Tax Act? 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. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 17.06.2020 Internet: Yes 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.1198 of 2015 abr T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. abr To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. TCA.No.1198 of 2015 17.06.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Coimbatore v. Prasad and Company
Report Error