THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S VIMKAR CONTRACTS WORKS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed both Tax Case Appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to the low tax effect, which was below the threshold limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law framed in both appeals were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, for hearing and decision on merits. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Chennai (the Revenue) filed two appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. TCA.No.288 of 2015 pertains to assessment year 2006-07 and challenges the ITAT's order dated 07.05.2014 in ITA.No.509/Mds/2014. TCA.No.1381 of 2009 relates to assessment year 2005-06 and challenges the ITAT's order dated 03.04.2009 in ITA.No.1226/Mds/2008. The respondent in both appeals is M/s. Vimkar Contracts Works Pvt. Ltd. The Revenue was represented by its counsel, while the assessee did not appear.
What were the issues?
The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. (TCA.No.288 of 2015) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB even though it is doing the manufacturing of the goods only as a contractor in the premises rented out by the principal and that too under the supervision of the principal? 2. (TCA.No.288 of 2015) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper that the Explanation at the end of Section 80IA stating that a person who executes works contract could not be given the benefit cannot be made applicable to cases that fall under Section 80IB? 3. (TCA.No.1381 of 2009) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of 80IB even though it is manufacturing the goods only as a contractor and in the premises rented out by the principal under the supervision of the Principal particularly when the Principal was also claiming the benefit under Section 80IB? The Revenue argued that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for appeals to Rs.1 Crore. The tax effect in both cases was below this threshold. No arguments were recorded for the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax I, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Vimkar Contracts Works Pvt. Ltd., No.45, Chamiers Road, Chennai - 600 028. PAN: AABCV3911H ...Respondent Appeal in TCA.No.288 of 2015 filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 07.05.2014 made in ITA.No.509/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. Appeal in TCA.No.1381 of 2009 filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 03.04.2009 made in ITA.No.1226/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SSC For Respondent : No appearance 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue. 2.TCA.No.288 of 2015, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 07.05.2014 made in ITA.No.509/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. 3.TCA.No.1381 of 2009, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is directed against the order dated 03.04.2009 made in ITA.No.1226/Mds/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06. 4.TCA.No.288 of 2015 was admitted on 08.06.2015 on 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 assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB even though it is doing 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 the manufacturing of the goods only as a contractor in the premises rented out by the principal and that too under the supervision of the principal? 2) Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper that the Explanation at the end of Section 80IA stating that a person who executes works contract could not be given the benefit cannot be made applicable to cases that fall under Section 80IB?" 5.TCA.No.1381 of 2009 was admitted on 21.12.2009 on the following substantial question of law : “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of 80IB even though it is manufacturing the goods only as a contractor and in the premises rented out by the principal under the supervision of the Principal particularly when the Principal was also claiming the benefit under Section 80IB?" 6.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the above appeals are 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 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 7.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Vimkar Contracts Works Pvt. Ltd., No.45, Chamiers Road, Chennai - 600 028. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.288 of 2015 and 1381 of 2009 27.08.2019 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 80IB
- D.C.I.T., Circle - 10(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Berger Paints India Ltd., KolkataITA 740/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Tasa Foods Private Limited, Bangalore vs DCIT, Circle-7(1)(1), BengaluruITA 2908/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Uflex Limited, Delhi vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 280/DEL/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2022-23
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Noida vs Uflex Limited, DelhiITTPA 272/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2020-21
- Uflex Limited, Pamposh Enclave, Greater… vs DCIT/ACIT Cen Cir-II, NoidaITTPA 260/DEL/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Aug 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026