TCA.Nos.58 and 59 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 Nos.58 & 59 of 2015 Commissioner of Income tax, Chennai. ...Appellant in both Appeals Vs M/s.Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd., No.46, Whites Road, Royapettah, Chennai-600 014. ...Respondent in both Appeals APPEALS under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 22.08.2014 made in I.T.A.Nos.1241 & 1154/Mds/2014 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, (In both TCAs) Senior Standing Counsel & Ms.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel Respondent: Mr.R.Viayaraghavan (In both TCAs) For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Padmanabhan & Ramamani 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.58 and 59 of 2015 Common Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.R.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for respondent-assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 are directed against order order dated 22.08.2014 made in I.T.A.Nos.1241 & 1154/Mds/2014 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3. appeals were admitted on 10.03.2015 on following substantial questions of law : T.C.(A) No.58 of 2015:- i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in confirming order of CIT(A) who deleted disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act holding that payment made by assessee to M/s.Fund Quest was not in nature of royalty and therefore no TDS was to be deducted on payments made? ii) Is not finding of Tribunal wrong especially when Fund Quest had done elaborate market research on investment Portfolio who had developed data for investment with less risk and to get maximum return which is value added product prepared on basis 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.58 and 59 of 2015 of experience and commercial information provided by them is to be considered as royalty as per provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act and also as per Article 13 of Indo French Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement? iii) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that repairs of leasehold premises amounting to Rs.17,20,406/- is to be treated only as revenue expenditure especially when assessee has incurred expenditure which are in nature of capital expenditure as per Explanation 1 to Section 32(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act? T.C.(A) No.59 of 2015:- i) Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in confirming order of CIT(A) who deleted disallowance made under Section 40(a)(i) of Income Tax Act holding that payment made by assessee to M/s.Fund Quest was not in nature of royalty and therefore no TDS was to be deducted on payments made? ii) Is not finding of Tribunal wrong especially when Fund Quest had done elaborate market research on investment Portfolio who had developed data for investment with less risk and to get maximum return which is value added product prepared by them is to be considered as royalty as per provisions of Section 9(1)(vi) of Income Tax Act and also as per Article 13 of Indo French Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement? iii) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that repairs of leasehold premises amounting to 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.58 and 59 of 2015 Rs.16,81,348/- is to be treated only as revenue expenditure especially when assessee has incurred expenditure which are in nature of capital expenditure as per Explanation 1 to Section 32(1)(ii) of Income Tax Act? 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeals are 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 appeals are 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 17.06.2020 Internet: Yes abr T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.58 and 59 of 2015 PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J. abr To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. TCA.Nos.58 & 59 of 2015 17.06.2020 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd