Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sudershan Rani Rallan

PDF · subscribers
TCA/256/2024HC Madras05 November 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, was informed that as per CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 dated September 17, 2024, the tax effect in the instant case is less than the monetary limit imposed for filing appeals. Consequently, the Revenue requested that the appeal be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law open for adjudication at a later point. Recording this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal for low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were expressly left open for adjudication at an appropriate stage. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated June 27, 2023, in ITA No.131/Chny/2022. The assessee in this case is Sudhershan Rani Rallan. The appeal concerns the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue's appeal is based on substantial questions of law regarding the Tribunal's findings on the disallowance computation.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D could not be confirmed as computed and disallowed by the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the Assessing Officer had not recorded any findings as to the expenditure actually made by the assessee for the purpose of earning exempt income, and thereby holding that the disallowance computed by the Assessing Officer is to be set aside? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the Assessing Officer's findings regarding the correctness of the expenditure computed by the assessee, when the Assessing Officer had specifically questioned the computation and applied the presumptive provisions of Rule 8D for the purpose of computing the disallowance? The Revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the disallowance computation. The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.256 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.11.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.256 of 2024 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. Sudhershan Rani Rallan .... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench Chennai, dated 27.06.2023 made in I.T.A.No.131/Chny/2022. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel ----- J U D G M E N T (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law: https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.256 of 2024 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance as under Section14A read with Rule 8D cannot be confirmed as computed and disallowed by the Assessing Officer? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessing officer had not recorded any findings as to the expenditure actually made by the assessee for the purpose of earning exempt income and thereby holding that the disallowance computed by the assessing officer is to be set aside? 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in not appreciating the assessing officer's findings regarding the correctness of the expenditure computed by the assessee when the assessing officer has specifically questioned the computation of holding that the assessee incurred expenditure of both direct and indirect nature and thereby applying the presumptive provisions of Rule 8D for the purpose of computation of disallowance? https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.256 of 2024 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. 3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 05.11.2024 NCS : Yes/No KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.256 of 2024 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.256 of 2024 05.11.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 14A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →