COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.REDPHONEIX CONSULTANCY

PDF · subscribers
TCA/107/2018HC Madras28 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on their merits. Instead, the appeals were dismissed on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai, filed two appeals (TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeals pertained to the assessment year 2010-2011 and involved M/s.Redphoenix Consultancy Private Limited and M/s.Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd. as respondents/assessees. The appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw these appeals due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs.1 Crore.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide on four substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of short deduction of tax (TDS) at source from payment for making of an advertisement film? 2. Whether expenditure on the making of an ad-film is a business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that the assessee had paid service charges at the rate of market value, when service charges had been paid at 6% of the total turnover as against 3% of the total turnover in the previous year is vitiated by perversity? 4. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D will have no applicability, if there is no exempt income? The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred on these points. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on these issues, but rather notes the Revenue's submission for withdrawal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 37,Section 14A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai. ...Appellant in both the Appeals Vs M/s.Redphoenix Consultancy Private Limited (Presently Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Private Limited), Jhaver Plaza III Floor, No.1-A, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. PAN: AACCR7329G ...Respondent in TCA.No.107 of 2018 M/s.Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly M/s.Shukla Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.) Old No.20/1B, New No.8, Valliammal Achi Street, Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085. PAN: AABCT2250P ...Respondent in TCA.No.108 of 2018 APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 05.07.2017 made in ITA.Nos.1961 and 2647/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2010-2011. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, SSC For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 05.07.2017 made in ITA.Nos.1961 and 2647/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2010-2011. 3.The appeals were admitted on 04.11.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i.Whether the Tribunal erred in law in deleting disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the ground of short deduction of tax (TDS) at source from payment for making of an advertisement film? ii.Whether expenditure on the making of an ad-film is a business expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? iii.Whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that the assessee had paid service charges at the rate of market value, when service charges at the rate of market value, when service charges had been paid at 6% of the total turnover as against 3% of the total turnover in the previous year is vitiated by perversity? 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 iv.Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D will have no applicability, if there is no exempt income?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel 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 08.8.2019 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 the respective cases 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 questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No

3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse To 1.M/s.Redphoenix Consultancy Private Limited (Presently Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Private Limited), Jhaver Plaza III Floor, No.1-A, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. 2.M/s.Tirunelveli Vayu Energy Generation Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly M/s.Shukla Consultancy Pvt. Ltd.) Old No.20/1B, New No.8, Valliammal Achi Street, Kotturpuram, Chennai - 600 085. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. TCA.Nos.107 and 108 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →