TCA.No.236 of 2018 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 08.7.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.Neovia Logistics Services India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-113. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 28.10.2016 made in ITA.No.77/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan For Respondent: M/s.King & Patridge Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and learned counsel for respondent. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.236 of 2018 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 28.10.2016 made in ITA. No.77/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench for assessment year 2009-10. 3. Revenue filed this appeal by raising following substantial questions of law : i. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was correct and justified in granting deduction under Section 10A when there is clear violation of Section 10A(2)(ii) of Income Tax Act ? ii. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal was right and justified in holding that assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 10A to Logistics Division formed by splitting up or reconstruction of already existing business ? And iii. Whether, on facts and circumstances of case and in law, Tribunal erred in disregarding fact that ultimate ownership of Logistics Division vests with M/s.Caterpillar Inc., USA only which reconstructed its business by transferring this Division from CCPL to assessee and thus, impugned order of Tribunal is perverse on facts and in law ? 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.236 of 2018 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 raised 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. 08.7.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.236 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.236 of 2018 08.7.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Chennai v. Neovia Logistics Services India Pvt. Ltd