COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SRI BALAJI INFRA DEVELOPERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the revised threshold limit for filing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, 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, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed. The specific findings and reasoning of the ITAT on the substantial questions of law were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding the applicability of Section 40A(ia) of the Act. The substantial questions of law were admitted by the High Court on 21.07.2015. The Revenue, however, did not pursue the appeal due to a 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.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide three substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in considering the issue of applicability of Section 40A(ia) to amounts paid or payable before the last day of the financial year, which was not the subject matter of the CIT(A) order. 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40A(ia) can be invoked only to amounts of expenditure which are payable as on the last day of the financial year, and not the expenditure incurred during the financial year. 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in not considering the issue of payments to intermediaries without correlating the service provider and non-deduction of tax at source to the service provider/poklinne operator/contractor. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal erred in its findings on these issues. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee's side regarding these questions, nor does it mention any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either party for these issues.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.420 of 2015 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 No.420 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Salem. ...Appellant Vs Sri Balaji Infra Developers, 5-38 U, Arumuga Nagar, Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.12.2014 made in ITA.No.2707/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC and Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent : Mr.K.S.Loganathan JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.K.S.Loganathan,
learned counsel
appearing
for
the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.420 of 2015 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 12.12.2014 made in ITA.No.2707/MDS/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. 3.The appeal was admitted on 21.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in considering the issue of applicability of Section 40a(ia) to amounts paid or payable before the last day of the financial year which was not the subject matter of the CIT(A) order? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Section 40a(ia) can be invoked only to the amounts of expenditure which are payable as on last day of the financial year and the not the expenditure incurred during the financial year? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in not considering the issue payments to intermediary without correlating the service provider and non deduction of tax at source to the service provider/poklinne operator/contractor?" 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.420 of 2015 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 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.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.Sri Balaji Infra Developers, 5-38 U, Arumuga Nagar, Alagapuram, Salem - 636 016. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.420 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.420 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40A(ia)
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Kaushal Pravinkumar Shah, Ahmedabad vs Income Tax Officer, AhmedabadITA 2356/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- Abc Construction, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 703/KOL/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
- Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1)… vs Abc Construction, BerhmaporeITA 3070/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2026AY 2023-24
- JCIT(in-Situ), CC-1(4), Kolkata vs K & K Minerals Pvt Ltd, KolkataITA 566/KOL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed14 Aug 2026AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026