Order dt.19.8.2020 in TCA.No.139/2010 CIT, Chennai V. FI Smidth Minerals Pvt.Ltd IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.08.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.138 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant Vs FI Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly FEE Minerals India Pvt.Ltd.,) 34, Egatoor, Kelambakkam, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Chennai 603 103. PAN : AACF1122D ... Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 15.05.2009 in I.T.A.No.1593/08. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Standing counsel For Respondent : M/s.Srini Ranjani Mr.S.N. Muthukumaran http://www.judis.nic.in1/4 Order dt.19.8.2020 in TCA.No.139/2010 CIT, Chennai V. FI Smidth Minerals Pvt.Ltd ORDER (Delivered by Dr.Vineet Kothari, J.) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residences and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. 2. This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by Revenue, calling in question correctness of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras C' Bench by raising following substantial questions of law: "(a)The order of Appellate Tribunal is erroneous in law and opposed to facts and circumstances of case. (b) Appellate Tribunal erred in confirming order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in reducing disallowance for provision for warranty from Rs.1,53,21,638/- to Rs.40 lakhs on ground that claim of Rs.1,13,21,638/- 'pertained to retention money, liquidated damages etc., (c) Appellate Tribunal ought to have held that http://www.judis.nic.in2/4 Order dt.19.8.2020 in TCA.No.139/2010 CIT, Chennai V. FI Smidth Minerals Pvt.Ltd entire provision of RS.1,53,21,638/- was claimed as provision for warranty which has not been made based on any systematic data maintained viz., on any scientific basis but had been made only on ad hoc basis. 3. When matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice Circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8 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). 4. In instant case, tax effect is said to be less than monetary limit imposed and therefore, Appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2010 is closed. 5. Registry is directed to send copy of judgment to Respondent / Assessee in address given in Appeal. [V.K.,J.] [K.R.,J.] 19.08.2020 msr http://www.judis.nic.in3/4 Order dt.19.8.2020 in TCA.No.139/2010 CIT, Chennai V. FI Smidth Minerals Pvt.Ltd Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. & KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J. Msr T.C.A.No.138 of 2010& M.P.No.1 of 2010 19.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in4/4 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. FI Smidth Minerals Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly FEE Minerals India Pvt. Ltd.)