COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S RK SWAMY BBDO PRIVATE LTD

PDF · subscribers
TCA/27/2017HC Madras29 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect. The substantial questions of law 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. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-20, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT'), 'D' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2011-12 and challenges the ITAT's decision concerning the assessee, M/s. RK Swamy BBDO Private Limited. The dispute involves disallowance of rent paid to a sister concern, disallowance of interest payment linked to rental deposits, and eligibility for 100% depreciation on leasehold premises. The Revenue's appeal was filed against the ITAT's order which had deleted these disallowances.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide four substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that rent paid by the assessee to its sister concern was not excessive, thus disallowing disallowance under Section 40A(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that disallowance of interest payment, based on the diversion of interest-free rental deposit to a sister concern, was not warranted due to the absence of a link between the borrowal and the advance payment. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the disallowance of interest-free deposit made to its sister concern, considering the Supreme Court's judgment in S.A. Builders, which was referred to a larger bench. 4. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the assessee was eligible for 100% depreciation on leasehold premises for expenditures related to false roofing and wooden partitions. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in its findings on these issues. The Assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, beyond their appearance as the respondent in the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 40A(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.27 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 No.27 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-20, Chennai. .. Appellant -vs- M/s.RK Swamy BBDO Private Limited, Film Chamber Building, 604 – 606 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. PAN: AACCR 2213 F .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 30.06.2016, made in I.T.A.No.47/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar ****** 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.27 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 30.06.2016, made in I.T.A.No.47/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that expenditure incurred by the assessee towards payment of rent to its sister concern was not excessive when compared to the payments made by similar entities and disallowance under the provisions of Section 40A (2) are not warranted? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that disallowance of interest payment based on the diversion of interest free rental deposit to its sister concern is not warranted since there was no link between the borrowal and payment of advance to the concern? (iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the interest free deposit made to its sister concern following 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.27 of 2017 the Apex Court judgment in the case of S.A.Builders which is referred to larger bench of the Apex Court for reconsideration? and (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is eligible for 100% depreciation on the leasehold premises towards the expenditure incurred in connection with false roofing, wooden partition/cabin etc?” 3.Heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 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. 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.27 of 2017 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is 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 appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 1.M/s.RK Swamy BBDO Private Limited, Film Chamber Building, 604 – 606 Anna Salai, Chennai-600 006. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'D' Bench, Chennai. T.S.Sivagnanam, J. 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.27 of 2017 and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.No.27 of 2017 29.08.2019 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 40A(2)

All 542 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →