THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER O vs. M/S. KHAZANA JEWELLERY PVT.

PDF · subscribers
TCA/100/2021HC Madras02 February 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM6 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. The Revenue submitted that it was not pursuing these appeals due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. As the tax effect in these cases was below this threshold, the appeals were dismissed on this ground. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to file a petition for restoration if the tax effect subsequently exceeded the threshold limit. No costs were awarded, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, filed three appeals (TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench, dated 13.10.2017. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2011-12, 2009-10, and 2010-11, respectively. The appeals challenged the ITAT's findings concerning the taxability of financial benefits provided under a gold promotional scheme and banking charges paid by the assessee, M/s. Khazana Jewellery Private Limited. The procedural history involves the ITAT passing orders in favour of the assessee, which the Revenue then appealed to the High Court.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the financial benefit provided to customers on a gold promotional scheme should be treated as "interest" under Section 2(28A) and be liable for TDS under Section 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether banking charges paid by the assessee for facilitating credit and debit card payments are liable for TDS under Section 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 2009-10 to 2013-14. 3. Whether the services provided by the bank in facilitating credit and debit card payments constitute managerial, technical, or consulting services to the assessee. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding these questions, nor does it name any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either party in the context of these arguments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(28A),Section 194A,Section 194J,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2021 CORAM : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Ms.Justice R.N.MANJULA Tax Case Appeal Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.1783 & 1790 of 2021 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle I, Chennai. ...Appellant in all cases Vs M/s.Khazana Jewellery Private Limited, No.252-A, T.T.K.Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018. PAN: AAACK2564Q ...Respondent in all cases COMMON PRAYER: Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.10.2017 made in ITA.No.1831/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12, ITA.No.1829/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 and ITA.No.1830/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 (in all cases) For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

) These appeals, filed by the Revenue, are directed against the order dated 13.10.2017 made in ITA.No.1831/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2011-12, ITA.No.1829/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 and ITA.No.1830/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench ('The Tribunal' for brevity). 2. The appellant-Revenue in all these appeals has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration: "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the financial benefit provided to customers on the gold promotional scheme shouldn't be treated as "interest" u/s 2(28A) and 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 isn't liable to TDS u/s 194A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the banking charges paid by the assessee company to banks for facilitating credit and debit card payments are not liable to TDS u/s 194J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the AY's 2009-10 to 2013-14? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the services provided by the bank in this regard are not any managerial, technical or consulting services to the assessee?" 3. We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to file a petition before this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (T.S.S.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.) 02.02.2021 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking Judgment/Non speaking Judgment hvk 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. 2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle I, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND R.N.MANJULA,J hvk T.C.A.Nos.100, 104 & 109 of 2021 and C.M.P.Nos.1783 & 1790 of 2021 02.02.2021 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 2(28A)

All 128 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(28A) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →