TCA.Nos.225 & 226/2020 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 25.8.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.225 & 226 of 2020 & CMP.No.8784 of 2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Bay Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-5. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against common order dated 04.3.2019 made respectively in ITA.Nos. 2614/Mds/2017 and 642/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench respectively for assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.225 & 226/2020 We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel accepting notice for respondent assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, Act), are directed against common order dated 04.3.2019 made respectively in ITA.Nos.2614/ Mds/2017 and 642/Mds/2016 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench (for short, Tribunal) respectively for assessment years 2012-13 and 2011-12. 3. Revenue has filed these appeals by raising following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in allowing plot maintenance and development expenses as revenue expenditure especially when said expenses were incurred periodically which gives enduring benefit to assessee and therefore, same is to be treated as capital expenditure ? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in allowing plot maintenance and development expenses as revenue 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.225 & 226/2020 expenditure without appreciating fact that leased plot was not in nature of stock in trade ? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in allowing plot maintenance and development expenses as revenue expenditure especially in development charges paid in addition to lease amount to landlord which would have otherwise been incurred by assessee for development of land and therefore would be capital expenditure only ? And 4. Is not finding of Tribunal bad especially when plot maintenance and development expenses are to be treated as capital expenditure and only depreciation on same is to be granted ? 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 respective cases is less than threshold limit. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.225 & 226/2020 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial questions of law raised are left open. In event tax effect in respective cases 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. Consequently, connected CMP is also dismissed. 25.8.2020 To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.Nos.225 & 226 of 2020 and CMP.No.8784 of 2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Bay Container Terminal Pvt. Ltd