THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S PARAMOUNT HEAVY CARRIERS

PDF · subscribers
TCA/172/2015HC Madras24 August 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned counsel for the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in light of the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenged an order dated September 19, 2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench, in ITA No.1179/Mds/2010. The assessment year in question was 2006-07. The assessee is M/s. Paramount Heavy Carriers. The appeal was filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The procedural history leading to the appeal involved the ITAT passing an order that the Revenue sought to contest.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not attracted for non-deduction of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) made under Section 194C of the Act towards transportation charges? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not attracted? The Revenue contended that Section 40(a)(ia) should be attracted due to the non-deduction of TDS. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee regarding these issues. However, the second question is a broader reiteration of the first, focusing on the non-attraction of Section 40(a)(ia).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.172/2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No. 172 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

.. Appellant Versus M/s.Paramount Heavy Carriers, No.65, Coral Merchant Street, Chennai 600 001.

.. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 19.09.2014 passed in ITA No.1179/Mds/2010 in respect of Assessment Year 2006-07. For Appellant : M/s.T.Ravi Kumar Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.172/2015 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai in ITA No.1179/Mds/2010 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 raising the following substantial questions of law; '1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted for non deduction of TDS made u/s.194C of the Act towards transportation charges? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act is not attracted?”

2.

When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.172/2015 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 24.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To 1. The Income Tax Officer Ward IX (4), Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IX Chennai-34. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.172/2015 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.No. 172 of 2015 24.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →