COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHAIK MOHAMED MOHAMMED
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, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in the present case was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed for the appeal 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 threshold limit fixed in the circular, allowing it 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 dated 19.08.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2009-10. The substantial question of law framed for consideration was whether Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act could be invoked only for amounts of expenditure payable as of the last day of the financial year, and not for expenditure incurred during the financial year. The respondent, Sri Shaik Mohamed Mohamed Rafeeq, was not ready to proceed with the case.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40(a)(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 incurred during the financial year? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The respondent was not ready to proceed with the case. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's learned 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 the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.147 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.147 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Sri Shaik Mohamed Mohamed Rafeeq ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 19.08.2014 made in ITA.No.20/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent : Not ready notice JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.147 of 2015 Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 19.08.2014 made in ITA.No.20/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.The appeal was admitted on 07.04.2015 on 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 40(a)(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 incurred 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.147 of 2015 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.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.147 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.147 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026