THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S SRI LAKSHMI SARASWATHY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed 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, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings on the substantial questions of law were not made as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.
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 09.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal concerned the assessment year 2003-04 and related to the assessee, M/s. Sri Lakshmi Saraswathy Textiles (Arni) Ltd. The appeal was admitted on 21.07.2015, raising substantial questions of law concerning the deductibility of profits from the sale of DEPB licenses. The Revenue later submitted that it was not pursuing the appeal due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the assessee was entitled to a deduction on profit from the sale of DEPB from its total income without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the third proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, in the absence of the third proviso to Section 80HHC, the assessee would be entitled to a deduction of profit from the sale of DEPB license from its total income, in light of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and Section 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in allowing the deduction without the assessee fulfilling the conditions of the third proviso to Section 80HHC and by overlooking the implications of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and Section 28(iiie) in the absence of the said proviso. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 80HHC,Section 28(iiie)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.230 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.230 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Sri Lakshmi Saraswathy Textiles (Arni) Ltd., 16, Krishnama Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. PAN: AABCS2312M ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 09.06.2014 made in ITA.No.809/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2003-04. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : Mr.Philip George JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2015 appellant/revenue and Mr.Philip George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 09.06.2014 made in ITA.No.809/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2003-04. 3.The appeal was admitted on 21.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction on profit from sale of DEPB from its total income without fulfilling the conditions prescribed in the 3rd proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in overlooking the fact that in the absence of 3rd proviso to Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, the assessee would not be entitled to deduction of profit from sale of DEPB license from its total income in the light of Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC and Section 28(iiie) of the Income Tax Act?" 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2015 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 on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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 1.M/s.Sri Lakshmi Saraswathy Textiles (Arni) Ltd., 16, Krishnama Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.230 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.230 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 80HHC
- Sheena Industries, Panipat vs ACIT Circle, PanipatITA 3076/DEL/2008[2004-2005]Status: Disposed26 May 2026AY 2004-2005
- Sarla Fashion Garments, New Delhi vs JCIT, Range-31, DelhiITA 1799/DEL/2006[2001-2002]Status: Disposed20 May 2026AY 2001-2002
- M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd vs C I T and AnrITA/517/200826 Feb 2026
- C I T vs M/S Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Helathcare LtdITA/271/20095 Feb 2026
- CIT, Chandigarh vs M/S Hindustan Unilever LtdITA/677/20085 Feb 2026
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026