THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S. CHETTINAD MORIMURA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs.1 crore by this circular, and the tax effect in the present case was less than this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were expressly left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal 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, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated June 12, 2015. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2009-2010 and was passed in ITA.No.50/Mds/2015. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the allowability of a deduction under Section 80IA and the treatment of depreciation on windmills. During the proceedings, the Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs.1 crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction claimed under Section 80IA of the Act? (Question of law) 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad, especially when the loss on account of depreciation on wind mills in the earlier year has to be set off notionally against the deduction as per Section 80IA(5)? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee, M/s. Chettinad Morimura Semiconductor Materials Pvt Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to 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
T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE: 26.03.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ... Appellant v. M/s. Chettinad Morimura Semiconductor Materials Pvt Ltd., No.37, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Khazhipattur Village Padur Post, Kancheepuram District – 603 103 PAN AAACC 2461 Q ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “A” Bench, dated 12.06.2015 in ITA.No.50/Mds/2015 for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 For Appellant : Mrs. R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr. M. Kaushik for Mr. S. Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mrs. R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M. Kaushik for the respondent/Assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 12.06.2015 made in ITA.No.50/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2009-2010. 3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing deduction claimed u/s 801A of the Act? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad especially when the loss on account of depreciation on wind mills in the earlier year has to be set off notionally against the deduction as per deduction u/s.801A(5)?” 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing 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 08.08.2019 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 Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 effect in this case 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. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 26.03.2021
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj T.C.A.No.1098 of 2015 26.03.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 80IA
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Klsr Infratech Limited, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), HyderabadITA 2323/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026