PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. ARMSTRONG KNITTING MILLS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore, and the tax effect in the respective cases was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed in the appeals were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit in the future. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Coimbatore, filed two appeals (TCA.Nos.461 and 462 of 2018) before the High Court of Madras against the common order dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and concerned the assessee, M/s. Armstrong Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd. The appeals challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the taxability of proceeds from the sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credits (CERCs) and the eligibility for deduction under Section 80-IA, including the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation. The Revenue's appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the proceeds realized by the assessee on the sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credits (CERCs), earned from its wind energy operations under the Clean Development Mechanism, constitute a capital receipt and are therefore not taxable. 2. Whether the sale of Carbon Credits is to be considered a capital receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that there is no cost of acquisition or production for entitlement to Carbon Credits, despite their link to the assessee's machinery and production processes. 4. Whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act. 5. Whether unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, which had already been absorbed, should be notionally carried forward and considered for the computation of deduction under Section 80-IA. Assessee's arguments are not recorded. 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 the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The tax effect in these cases was stated to be below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.461 and 462 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 Nos.461 and 462 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.9837 of 2018 in T.C.A.No.462 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Armstrong Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd., 61-C, Saminathapuram, 2nd Street, Anupparpalayam Post, Tirupur - 641 652. PAN: AAECA3667Q ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 06.01.2016 made in ITA.No.747/Mds/2014 and ITA>No.1725/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, SSC assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani For Respondent : Mr.R.Senniappan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthilkumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Senniappan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.461 and 462 of 2018 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 06.01.2016 made in ITA.No.747/Mds/2014 and ITA>No.1725/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 3.The appeals have been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.461 of 2018: 1.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceeds realized by the assessee on sale of Certified Emission Reduction Credit, which the assessee had earned on the Clean Development Mechanism in its wind energy operations, is a capital receipt and not taxable? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that sale of Carbon Credits is to be considered as Capital Receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under Income Tax Act, 1961? 3.Whether the ITAT is correct in holding that there is no cost of acquisition or cost of production to get entitlement for the Carbon Credits, without appreciating that generation of Carbon Credits is intricately linked to the machinery and processes employed in the production process by the assessee? TCA.No.462 of 2018: 1.Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction u/s.80-IA of the Income Tax Act? 2.Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that unabsorbed depreciation of earlier years, before the first year of claim, which has already been absorbed, should not be notionally carried forward and taken into consideration for computation of deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.461 and 462 of 2018 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 is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.461 and 462 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse To 1.M/s.Armstrong Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd., 61-C, Saminathapuram, 2nd Street, Anupparpalayam Post, Tirupur - 641 652. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. TCA.Nos.461 and 462 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.9837 of 2018 in T.C.A.No.462 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 80-IA
- ACIT-Circle 6(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7767/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- ACIT-Circle6(1)(1) Mumbai., Mumbai vs Aditya Birla Real Estate Limited, MumbaiITA 7766/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- DCIT, Central Circle- 2(4), Chennai vs Eco Protection Engineers Private Limited…ITA 597/CHNY/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Shyam Metalics and Energy Limited, Kolkata vs DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), KolkataITTPA 12/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Heard11 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- State Bank of India, Mumbai vs ACIT-Circle- 2(2)(1), MumbaiITA 3429/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: Disposed11 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026