THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. RMP INFOTECH PVT LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
TCA/1237/2015HC Madras29 March 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of the low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the threshold limit of Rs. 1 crore for pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.

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, Chennai, dated June 30, 2015. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2007-08 and challenged the Tribunal's decision regarding a disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, citing the low tax effect in accordance with 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 holding that the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) is not proper? 2. Whether the reasoning of the Tribunal is proper in holding that the disallowance is to be made only on those amounts which were outstanding and not on payments which had already been paid while dealing with Section 40(a)(ia)? 3. Whether the term 'payable' would include the amount already paid with reference to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The assessee was represented by counsel. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The tax effect in this case was below the prescribed threshold.

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.1237 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.No.1237 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.RMP Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Old No.183, New No.300, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench, dated 30.06.2015 in I.TA.No.1972/Mds/2010, Assessment Year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1237 of 2015 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel 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 30.06.2015 made in I.TA.No.1972/Mds/2010 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 3.The appeal was admitted on 18.01.2016 on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) is not proper? Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1237 of 2015 2.Whether the reasoning of the Tribunal is proper in holding that the disallowance is to be made only on those amounts which were outstanding and not on payments which had already been paid while dealing with Section 40(a)(ia)? 3.Whether the term payable would include the amount already paid with reference to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 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 08.08.2019 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 questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1237 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.] Index : Yes/No 29.03.2021 Internet : Yes

mkn

To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.1237 of 2015 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mkn T.C.A.No.1237 of 2015 29.03.2021 Page 5/5 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 →