COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RPG TRANSMISSION LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, which was below the threshold limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial question of law framed in the appeal 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 threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax V, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 12.06.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2006-07 and concerned M/s. RPG Transmission Ltd. The dispute revolved around the disallowance made by the Revenue under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act due to short deduction of tax at source. The High Court of Judicature at Madras heard the appeal. The Revenue's counsel 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 appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act cannot be made on short deduction of tax at source? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was 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 an appeal before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.340 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.340 of 2018 Commissioner of Income Tax V, 121, M.G. Road, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.RPG Transmission Ltd., Infinity Towers, 2nd Floor, Tower 'B', DLF City, Phase II, Gurgeon - 122 002. PAN: AABCS2191J ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.06.2014 made in ITA.No.2090/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkataraman for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.340 of 2018 appellant/revenue and Mr.R.Venkataraman, learned counsel for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 12.06.2014 made in ITA.No.2090/MDS/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in holding that the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act cannot be made on short deduction of tax at source?" 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 08.8.2019 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 is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.340 of 2018 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial question of law framed is 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.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.RPG Transmission Ltd., Infinity Towers, 2nd Floor, Tower 'B', DLF City, Phase II, Gurgeon - 122 002. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.340 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.340 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- 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