THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S INDO TECH TRANSFORMERS L
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's submission was based on the increased monetary limit for appeals to the High Court, which was Rs. 1 crore, and that the tax effect in this case was below that threshold. Consequently, the appeal was not pursued on merits. The substantial questions of law framed were expressly left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax, 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 May 13, 2014. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2005-06 and challenged the ITAT's decision allowing the assessee, M/s. Indo Tech Transformers Ltd., to set off brought forward losses from Assessment Year 2004-05. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. The Revenue later submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for High Court appeals to Rs. 1 crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the assessee was eligible for setting off brought forward losses from Assessment Year 2004-05 in Assessment Year 2005-06 without filing a revised return, given that the time limit for filing a revised return under Section 139(4) expired on March 31, 2006, and a High Court order regarding amalgamation was passed in September 2005. 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that it could claim set off of brought forward losses in the next assessment year was perverse and bad in law. 3. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the assessee could claim set off of brought forward loss in Assessment Year 2005-06 was proper, considering the High Court's amalgamation order in September 2005 and the absence of statutory provisions allowing brought forward losses without a revised return. 4. Whether losses of Assessment Year 2004-05 could be claimed in Assessment Year 2005-06 in the absence of any provision under the Income Tax Act allowing brought forward losses. The Revenue argued that the ITAT's order was incorrect as there was no statutory provision allowing set off of brought forward losses without filing a revised return, especially when the time limit for filing such a return had expired. The Revenue also questioned the Tribunal's finding of a bona fide belief on the part of the assessee. The judgment records no specific arguments from the assessee on these points, other than their counsel appearing for the respondent.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.06.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s.Indo Tech Transformers Ltd. DP 36, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Thirumazhisai, Chennai – 600 107. ... Respondent Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench, dated 13.05.2014 in I.TA.No.313/Mds/2014, Assessment Year 2005-06. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, 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 13.05.2014 made in I.TA.No.313/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 3.The appeal was admitted on 15.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 holding that the assessee was eligible for setting off of brought forward losses pertaining to the assessment year 2004-05 in the present assessment year without filing a revised return especially when the time limit that had been prescribed u/s.139(4) for filing the revised return of income expired only on 31.03.2006 and the High Court had passed order in September, 2005? 2.Is not the finding of the Tribunal is perverse and bad by holding that the assessee was under the bona fide belief that it can claim set off or brought forward of loss in the next assessment year ? 3.Whether finding of the Tribunal is proper by holding that the assessee can claim set off of brought forward loss in the assessment year 2005-06 as the order of the High Court passed for amalgamation was passed in September, 2005 and there is no statutory provisions under the Income Tax Act for allowing the brought forward losses without filing revised return? Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 4.Whether the losses of the assessment year 2004-05 can be claimed in the subsequent assessment year 2005-2006 especially when there is no provision under the Income Tax Act allowing brought forward losses?” 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 questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in this case is above the threshold limit fixed in the said Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 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.] 29.06.2021
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes
mkn
To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, “C” Bench 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and R. HEMALATHA, J. mkn T.C.A.No.320 of 2015 29.06.2021 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 139(4)
- Sanket Vijaybhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs Dy.CIT Circle 3(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2446/AHD/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Gurukul Shiksha Sanstha, Chandrapur vs ITO Ward - 3, Exemp, NagpurITA 549/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Aryanparv Realty LLP, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 3 3 1, AhmedabadITA 910/AHD/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed14 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Vishal Rameshbhai Sorathiya, Rajkot vs The ITO WD 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 485/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S. Development Education & Welfare Trust… vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(3), AlipurduarITA 2367/KOL/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026