THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S.ALTOS ADVISORY SERVICES

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1152/2015HC Madras01 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that the tax effect in the instant case was less than the monetary limit imposed. Consequently, the Court recorded this submission and dismissed the appeal, keeping the substantial questions of law raised open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law concerning the interpretation of Section 40(a)(ia) and the disallowance of consultancy charges for failure to deduct TDS.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'D' Bench, dated 05.06.2012 in ITA No.1091/Mds/2011. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2005-06 and concerns a disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for failure to deduct Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on consultancy charges. The assessee is M/s.Altos Advisory Services Limited. The High Court was informed by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in this appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue requested the appeal be disposed of without adjudicating the substantial questions of law.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) in respect of failure to deduct TDS on consultancy charges for AY 2005-06 is not proper? 2. Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad since the word 'payable' includes the word 'paid' for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ia)? Arguments: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee in the provided judgment. Revenue: The Revenue argued that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for failure to deduct TDS on consultancy charges was proper. They also contended that the word 'payable' in Section 40(a)(ia) should be interpreted to include 'paid', implying that the disallowance was justified. The Revenue's primary submission before the High Court was that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit, and they sought to keep the substantial questions of law open for future adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.1152 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.1152 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Altos Advisory Services Limited 29/20, Karpagambal Nagar, II Floor Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. ... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 05.06.2012 made in ITA No.1091/Mds/2011. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, by raising the following substantial questions of law: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.1152 of 2015 "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance made u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of failure to deduct TDS on consultancy charges for the AY 2005-06 is not proper? (ii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal bad since the word 'payavle' includes the word 'paid' for the purpose of Sec.40(a)(ia)?" 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. 3. Recording the said submission, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 01.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No Index : Yes/No KST https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.1152 of 2015 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.1152 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.1152 of 2015 01.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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 →