COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SAVARINAYAGI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as submitted by the Revenue's counsel. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs. 1 Crore by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and the tax effect in this case was less than this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without deciding the substantial questions of law framed. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold limit, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2009-10 and challenged the ITAT's deletion of disallowance made under Section 40A(ia) of the Act. The assessee is Smt. Savarinayagi. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. However, during the hearing, the Revenue submitted that it was not pursuing the appeal due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting that Section 40A(ia) is applicable only on those amounts 'payable' and not those amounts 'paid' during the year without deducting tax at source? 2. Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following the Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd., when the facts of the present case are distinguishable? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue contended that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which raised the threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.103 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.103 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax-2, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Smt.Savarinayagi ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.09.2014 made in ITA.No.386/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent : Mr.R.Janakiraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Janakiraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.103 of 2015 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 12.09.2014 made in ITA.No.386/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.The appeal was admitted on 10.03.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting that Section 40a(ia) is applicable only on those amounts 'payable' and not those amounts 'paid' during the year without deducting tax at source? 2.Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in following Allahabad High Court judgment in the case of Vector Shipping Services P. Ltd., when the facts of the present case is distinguishable?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeal is not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.103 of 2015 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 appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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 make a mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.103 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.103 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40A(ia)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kaushal Pravinkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, AhmedabadITA 2356/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Abc Construction, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 703/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)… vs Abc Construction, BerhmaporeITA 3070/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- JCIT(in-Situ), CC-1(4), Kolkata vs K & K Minerals Pvt Ltd, KolkataITA 566/KOL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026