COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SAFEWAY DREDGING
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this specific case was below the revised threshold. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed by the Revenue was left open. 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, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2010-11 and concerned M/s. Safeway Dredging Enterprise. The appeal was filed challenging the ITAT's decision regarding the applicability of Section 40A(ia) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue's counsel informed the High Court that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court 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 in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40A(ia) can be invoked only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the last day of the financial year and not the expenditure paid during the financial year? (Question of law turning on Section 40A(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of Section 40A(ia), suggesting it should apply to expenditure paid during the financial year, not just amounts payable at year-end. However, the Revenue later withdrew its pursuit of this appeal due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.119 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 No.119 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Trichy.
...Appellant Vs M/s.Safeway Dredging Enterprise, No.7, Sattaiappar East Street, Nagapattinam - 611 011. PAN: ABHFS8145A ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1447/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.119 of 2018 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 15.07.2016 made in ITA.No.1447/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3.This appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40a(ia) can be invoked only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on last day of the financial year and not the expenditure paid during the financial year?" 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 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. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.119 of 2018 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is 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 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.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Safeway Dredging Enterprise, No.7, Sattaiappar East Street, Nagapattinam - 611 011. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.119 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.119 of 2018 28.08.2019 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 →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- 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