PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. BGR ENERGY SYSTEMS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, in terms of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission 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. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 1, Chennai (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench, for Assessment Year 2010-11. The assessee is M/s. BGR Energy Systems Ltd. The appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D and the eligibility for depreciation on technical know-how fee. The Revenue sought to withdraw or dismiss the appeals 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.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is to be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee? 2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating that the disallowability of expenditure under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, as clarified by Circular No. 5/2014, is neither conditional upon earning exempted income nor linked to its quantum? 3. Whether the Tribunal was justified in confirming the deletion of an addition of Rs. 2,06,28,478/- made towards disallowance of depreciation on technical know-how fee? 4. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the assessee eligible for depreciation on the amount paid for technical know-how, without appreciating that the assessee had not acquired any capital asset in the nature of technical know-how, thus not fulfilling the conditions of Section 32(1)(ii)? Assessee's arguments were not recorded. The Revenue argued that the appeals should be dismissed due to low tax effect as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2020 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 & C.M.P.No.10178 of 2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central 1 No.108, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. .. Appellant in both T.C.As Versus M/s.BGR Energy Systems Ltd, No.443, Anna Salai, Teynampat, Chennai – 600 018 PAN:AAB CG 2202 J
.. Respondent in both T.C.As Common Prayer:- Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai made in I.T.A.No.660/Mds/2017 and I.T.A.No.954/Mds/2017 dated 07.12.2017 relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing counsel Assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani [in both T.C.As] For Respondent : Mr.Venkatanarayanan For M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanaban [in both T.C.As] COMMON JUDGMENT [Order of the Court was made by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
, J.]
We have heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by M/s.K.G.Usha Rani, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.Venkatanarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanaban, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 07.12.2017 made in I.T.A.No.660/Mds/2017 and I.T.A.No.954/Mds/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 3. These appeals were admitted on 24.07.2018 on the following substantial questions of law : “T.C.A.No.472 of 2018 1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the disallowance as per the provisions of Section 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962 is to be restricted to the extent of exempted income earned by the assessee during the year? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in not appreciating the legal principle that disallowability of expenditure 14A read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962, as clarified by the Board's Circular No.5/2014 dated 10.02.2014, is neither conditional upon the earning of exempted income nor linked to the quantum of exempted income earned by the assessee?” T.C.A.No.473 of 2018 1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,06,28,478/- made towards disallowance of depreciation on technical 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 knowhow fee paid? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for depreciation on value of the amount claimed to have paid towards technical know-how, by not appreciating the fact that the assessee has not acquired any capital asset in the nature of technical know-how, either fully or partly and thereby the conditions mentioned in the Section 32(1)(ii) were not fulfilled?” 4. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the 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 these cases are less than the threshold limit. 4/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 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 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 these appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (T.S.S.,J) (V.B.S.,J) 10.11.2020 Kak Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. 5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J. Kak T.C.A.Nos.472 & 473 of 2018 10.11.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026