THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.CHOLAMANDALAM DISTRIBUTI

PDF · subscribers
TCA/448/2017HC Madras16 August 2022Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the substantial question of law was kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The specific finding on whether the expenditure was capital or revenue in nature was not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal (TCA) under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'A' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2009-10 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding expenditure incurred by the assessee, M/s. Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd., on additions to leasehold premises. The High Court admitted the appeal on a substantial question of law on 08.08.2017.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on additions to leasehold premises was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure? The Revenue contended that the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this appeal was below this threshold limit. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.448 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.08.2022 CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.No. 448 of 2017 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai

.. Appellant Versus M/s.Cholamandalam Distribution Services Ltd., No.1, NSC Bose Road, Chennai 600 001.

.. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai dated 05.10.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.1953/Mds/2016 in respect of assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R. Venkata Narayanan for M/s. Subbaraya Aiyar 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.448 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the appellant / revenue, questioning the correctness of the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1953/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. On 08.08.2017, this tax case appeal is admitted by this Court on the following substantial question of law; "Whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee on additions to leasehold premises was capital expenditure or revenue expenditure?” 3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.448 of 2017 Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.] 16.08.2022 msr

Index : Yes / No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, Chennai 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.No.448 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.No. 448 of 2017 16.08.2022 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →