Order dt.28.8.2020 in TCA.No.863/2017 [CIT - Vs. - N.Raghunath] IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 28.08.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI & HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.863 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.21429 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant Vs Mr. N. Raghunath, New No.19, Old No.9, Judge Jambulingam Street, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. PAN No: ACCPR4059E ... Respondent Prayer: Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of Income Tax Act, 1961, against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, dated 07.03.2017 in I.T.A.No.3224/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T. Ravikumar Sr. Standing counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar http://www.judis.nic.in1/5 Order dt.28.8.2020 in TCA.No.863/2017 [CIT - Vs. - N.Raghunath] 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 A' Bench by raising following substantial questions of law: '1. Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that large sums of money incurred towards interior decoration which give to enduring benefit to assessee are revenue expenditure? 2. Is not finding of Tribunal bad since assessee in its books of accounts maintained had claimed only 10% depreciation but however, for purpose of income-tax had claimed 100% depreciation on temporary partition adopting differential treatment which is not correct? 3. Whether reasoning and finding of Tribunal is proper in holding that expenditure http://www.judis.nic.in2/5 Order dt.28.8.2020 in TCA.No.863/2017 [CIT - Vs. - N.Raghunath] incurred on temporary wooden structure are allowable as revenue expenditure and not capital? 4. Should not Tribunal apply decision of Apex Court in case of CIT Vs Mangayarkarasi Mills reported in 315 ITR page 114 especially when huge expenditure were incurred by Assessee on leased premises which has resulted in enduring benefit and therefore capital nature?' 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. C.M.P.No.21429 of 2017 filed to dispense with production of certified copy of order passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA NO.3224/Mds/2016, dated 07.06.2017 is ordered. http://www.judis.nic.in3/5 Order dt.28.8.2020 in TCA.No.863/2017 [CIT - Vs. - N.Raghunath] 5. Registry is directed to send copy of judgment to Respondent/Assessee in address given in Appeal. [V.K.,J.] [K.R.,J.] 28.08.2020 msr Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no http://www.judis.nic.in4/5 Order dt.28.8.2020 in TCA.No.863/2017 [CIT - Vs. - N.Raghunath] DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. & KRISHNAN RAMASAMY,J. Msr T.C.A.No.863 of 2017 & CMP.No.21429 of 2017 28.08.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in5/5 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. N. Raghunath