COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M.S MOHAMAD IDRIS BROS. PVT
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court 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 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. The Revenue stated that the tax effect in this case was below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law were left open. The Court granted liberty 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 IV, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 13.2.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'C' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2010-11 and challenges the ITAT's deletion of additions made under Section 40A(3A) of the Act. The assessee is M/s. Mohamed Idris Bros. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The dispute involves the applicability of Rule 6DD(d) and Rule 6DD(k) of the Income Tax Rules concerning cash payments.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(3A) by relying on Rule 6DD(d) which deals with book adjustments and cash payment totally outside the purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the Income Tax Rules? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(3A) by relying on Rule 6DD(k) which deals with payment made to its agents and when cash payments directly made to the weavers of the sister concern which is totally outside the purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the Income Tax Rules? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the addition under Section 40A(3A) by incorrectly applying Rule 6DD(d) and Rule 6DD(k) to cash payments made directly to weavers, which were outside the scope of these rules.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.519 of 2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.519 of 2016 Commissioner of Income Tax IV, Chennai-34. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Mohamed Idris Bros. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-1. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.2.2015 made in ITA.No.104/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent: Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli for Mr.G.Baskar 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 appellant – Revenue and Ms.Sree Lakshmi Valli, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.519 of 2016 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 13.2.2015 made in ITA.No. 104/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(3A) by relying on Rule 6DD(d) which deals with book adjustments and cash payment totally outside the purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the Income Tax Rules ? and ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(3A) by relying on Rule 6DD(k) which deals with payment made to its agents and when cash payments directly made to the weavers of the sister concern which is totally outside the purview of Rule 6DD(d) of the Income Tax Rules?” 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. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.519 of 2016 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 raised 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. 30.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.519 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.519 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40A(3A)
- Mageba Bridge Products Private Limited… vs ACIT, Circle 11(1), KolkataITA 1771/KOL/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Pakshal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai City vs ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Mumbai, Mumbai CityITA 3430/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2026AY 2011-12
- Pakshal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai City vs ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Mumbai, Mumbai CityITA 3429/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2026AY 2010-11
- Pakshal Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai City vs ITO, Ward-5(2)(4)< Mumbai, Mumbai CityITA 3428/MUM/2026[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Jul 2026AY 2009-10
- Annai Builders Real Estates Private… vs ACIT, Central Cricle 3(2), ChennaiITA 2584/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed4 May 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026