PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit stipulated in the circular. Consequently, the substantial questions of law that were 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. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Chennai, filed two appeals (T.C.A.Nos.234 & 235 of 2017) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the common order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('B' Bench, Chennai). These appeals pertained to the assessment year 2011-12 and challenged the Tribunal's decision concerning M/s. EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. The appeals were admitted on 01.06.2017, raising substantial questions of law. The Revenue later sought to withdraw these appeals, citing a low tax effect in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim of expenditure should be considered after calculating the actual investments made by the assessee during the relevant previous year, excluding investments made in its subsidiaries? This question turns on the interpretation of provisions related to expenditure claims and investments. 2. Whether the total disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act can exceed the exempt income or if it should be restricted to the profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules? This issue concerns the computation and limits of disallowance under Section 14A. The Revenue argued that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per 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 below this threshold. The Respondent (assessee) did not present arguments as the Revenue indicated withdrawal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.234 & 235 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.234 and 235 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.7971 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. .. Appellant in both Appeals -vs- M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd., 1/241, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027. PAN: AAA CE 2125 M .. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 28.10.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.622 & 662/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji (In both Appeals) ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.234 & 235 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 28.10.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.622 & 662/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeals have been admitted on 01.06.2017, on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that claim of expenditure has to be considered after working out the actual investments made by the assessee during the relevant previous year after excluding the investments made by it in its subsidiaries? and (ii) Whether total disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax act can exceed the exempt income or is to be restricted to profit under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules?” 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and N.V.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.234 & 235 of 2017 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are 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 appeals are 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.234 & 235 of 2017 V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) To 1.M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd., 1/241, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai-600 027. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos.234 and 235 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026