PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S.EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was not decided on its merits. The substantial question of law framed by the Court was left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold, for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, dated August 22, 2016. This order pertained to the Assessment Year 2007-08 and was passed in ITA No. 1550/Mds/2016. The assessee in this case is M/s. EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. The appeal was admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the addition of expenditure incurred to earn exempt income to the book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Act. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but is implied to be below the threshold for appeal due to low tax effect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred to earn exempt income could not be added to book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law). The Revenue argued that expenditure incurred to earn exempt income should be added to book profit under Section 115JB. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. However, the Tribunal's decision, which is under challenge, suggests the assessee argued against such an addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd., 1/241, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai – 600 027. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “B” Bench, dated 22.08.2016 in I.TA.No.1550/Mds/2016, Assessment Year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) is directed against the order dated 22.08.2016 made in I.TA.No.1550/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. 3.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure incurred to earn exempt income could not be added to book profit computed under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 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 08.08.2019 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 Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect in this case 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. [M.D., J.] [R.H., J.] 22.07.2021 mkn Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.260 of 2017
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “B” Bench Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn T.C.A.No.260 of 2017 22.07.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026