COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. M/S.HANSA VISION INDIA PRIVA

PDF · subscribers
TCA/226/2017HC Madras16 March 2020Bench: Hon`ble Dr Justice VINEET KOTHARI4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 8th August 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). In the present cases, the tax effect was stated to be less than this monetary limit. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as not pressed. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in an appropriate case. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law raised.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, filed two Tax Case Appeals (TCA Nos. 226 & 227 of 2017) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. These appeals challenged a common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, Chennai, dated 08.09.2016, concerning assessment years not specified in the provided text. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core dispute revolved around the disallowance of investments made by the assessee, M/s. Hansa Vision India Private Limited, in its sister concerns under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT had ruled against the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the investments made by the assessee in its sister concerns are not liable for disallowance under Section 14A, when the provisions of the said section as well as Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, do not provide for such exemption? Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. The ITAT's order, which was under challenge, presumably favored the assessee on this point. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the investments made by the assessee in its sister concerns should be disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, arguing that these provisions do not provide for any exemption for such investments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order in TCA Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hansa Vision P Ltd) dated 16.03.2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.03.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ... Appellant in both appeals Vs. M/s.Hansa Vision India Private Limited No.605&606, 2nd Floor, Film Chamber Building, Anna Salai, Chennai .. Respondent in both appeals Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 08.09.2016 in ITA Nos.1868 & 1869/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman & Sridhar

J U D G M E N T (Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Page 1 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hansa Vision P Ltd) dated 16.03.2020 Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, by raising the following substantial question of law: “ Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the investments made by the assessee in its sister concerns are not liable for disallowance u/s 14A, when the provisions of the said section as well as Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, does not provide for such exemption?”

2.

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, 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). 3. In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. (V.K.,J.) (R.S.K.,J.) 16.03.2020 Page 2 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hansa Vision P Ltd) dated 16.03.2020 KST To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench,Chennai. Page 3 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in Order in TCA Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 (CIT -Vs- M/s.Hansa Vision P Ltd) dated 16.03.2020 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. AND R.SURESH KUMAR, J. KST T.C.(A) Nos.226 & 227 of 2017 16.03.2020 Page 4 of 4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →