PRINCIPAL COMMISSIOER OF INC vs. M/S. M.CT.M. GLOBAL INVESTME
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this stipulated threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of this submission and the circular, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 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, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-4, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2006-07 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the exclusion of profit on foreign exchange fluctuation and the allowance of provision for diminution in value of investments. The appeal was filed against M/s. M.Ct.M. Global Investments Pvt. Ltd. The High Court was informed by the Revenue's counsel about CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in excluding profit on foreign exchange fluctuation credited in the Profit & Loss account, despite no specific provision in the Income Tax Act for such exclusion. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding profit on foreign exchange fluctuation as notional, even though Rule 115 provides for such adjustment. 3. Whether the ITAT erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. [312 ITR 254]. 4. Whether the ITAT was right in allowing deduction for provision for diminution in value of current investments when such investments are not 'stock-in-trade' and not appearing in the Profit & Loss account. 5. Whether the ITAT was right in holding Rule 8D as not applicable for pending proceedings relating to Assessment Year 2008-09, considering the Apex Court's decision in CWT Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [2010 ITR 886] regarding procedural rules. 6. Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the Revenue's appeal after holding that gain/loss on Foreign Exchange fluctuation is notional, leading to a contradictory and perverse order. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's findings on foreign exchange fluctuation and investment diminution were incorrect. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. The Revenue relied on the Apex Court's decision in Woodward Governor India P. Ltd. and the High Court's decision in CWT Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central-4, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs.
M/s.M.Ct.M.Global Investments Pvt. Ltd., 761, Anna Salai, Chennai - 600 002. ... Respondent (PAN AAB CM 9738 K)
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” Bench, Chennai, dated 21.10.2016 passed in C.O.No.200/Mds/2009. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue challenging the order dated 21.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench in C.O.No.200/Mds/2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07, by raising the following substantial questions of law : "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in excluding the profit on foreign exchange fluctuation credited in the Profit & Loss account even though there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to make such deduction? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in holding that profit on foreign exchange fluctuation is notional even though Rule 115 provides for such adjustment? (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal is erred in not following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Woodward Governor India P. Ltd., [312 ITR 254]? Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 (iv) Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in allowing deduction towards provision for diminution in value of current investments when such assessee are not 'stock-in-trade' and not appearing in the Profit & Loss account? (v) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rule 8D is not applicable for the pending proceedings relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 when IT Rules are held to be procedural in nature and applicable for all pending proceedings by the Apex Court in CWT Vs. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons [2010 ITR 886]? (vi) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue after holding that gain/loss on Foreign Exchange fluctuation is notional only and whether such contradictory order of the Tribunal is not perverse?" 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned Standing 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 appeal 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. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing 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.] 26.08.2022
r n s Internet : Yes.
Index : Yes / No. Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 To 1. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Range-IV, Chennai - 600 034. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “A” Bench. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s Tax Case Appeal No.236 of 2019
26.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026