THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRIRAM OWNERSHIP TRUST
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised by the Revenue was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 05.7.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to the assessment year 2013-14 and concerned the respondent, Shriram Ownership Trust. The dispute revolved around the computation of deduction under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that investment yielding no exempt income should be excluded while computing deduction under Section 14A, when the Income Tax Act and Rules do not provide for such exclusion and such investment remains in a tax-free territory? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in excluding investments that yielded no exempt income from the computation of deduction under Section 14A. The Revenue contended that the Income Tax Act and its Rules do not permit such an exclusion, and that such investments should always be considered within the tax-free territory, implying they should not be excluded from the calculation of disallowance under Section 14A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.241 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 08.7.2020 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.241 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs Shriram Ownership Trust, Chennai-17. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 05.7.2017 made in ITA.No.406/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2013-14. For Appellant: Mrs.R.Hemalatha For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J
We have heard Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaranan, learned counsel for the respondent. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.241 of 2018 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 05.7.2017 made in ITA.No. 406/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2013-14. 3. The Revenue filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the investment, which yielded no exempt income was to be excluded while computing deduction under Section 14A when the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder do not provide for any such exclusion and further such investment shall always remain in tax free territory ?” 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 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. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.241 of 2018 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law raised is 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. 08.7.2020 To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.241 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.241 of 2018 08.7.2020 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 →- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026