THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CHENTECH COMPUTER SERVICES

TCA/53/2016HC Madras2026/MHC/82326 February 2026Bench: Honourable Dr.Justice ANITA SUMANTH2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court recorded the submission made by the Revenue's Senior Standing Counsel that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 (in TCA No. 53 of 2016) and 2008-09 (in TCA No. 771 of 2014). The reason cited for withdrawal was low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the Court dismissed the tax case appeals as withdrawn. The judgment explicitly stated that the questions of law remain open to be decided in an appropriate future matter. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

These are two appeals filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench. TCA No. 53 of 2016 pertains to assessment year 2010-11, and TCA No. 771 of 2014 relates to assessment year 2008-09. The respondent in both appeals is M/s. Chentech Computer Services Pvt Ltd. The appeals challenge the ITAT's orders dated 22.7.2015 and 7.6.2012 respectively. The Department sought to withdraw these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue for assessment years 2010-11 (TCA No. 53 of 2016) and 2008-09 (TCA No. 771 of 2014) are to be dismissed as withdrawn on account of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, submitted that it does not wish to pursue these appeals for the specified assessment years and seeks their withdrawal due to low tax effect, citing Circular No. 9 of 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2026:MHC:823 T.C.A.Nos.53 of 2016 & 771 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.02.2026 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN T.C.A.Nos. 53 of 2016 & 771 of 2014 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai .. Appellant in both appeals vs M/s.Chentech Computer Services Pvt Ltd NO.75A, Dr Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004 PAN : AAACM5280H .. Respondent in both appeals Prayer in TCA No. 53 of 2016: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai dated 22.7.2015 passed in ITA No. 770/Mds/2015. Prayer in TCA No. 771 of 2014: Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai dated 7.6.2012 passed in ITA No. 1968/Mds/2011. (In Both) For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel For Respondents : Mr.R.Sivaraman 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:38 am ) T.C.A.Nos.53 of 2016 & 771 of 2014 DR. ANITA SUMANTH, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J. COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by Dr. ANITA SUMANTH,J) Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant / Department would submit that the Income-Tax Department does not wish to pursue these appeals qua assessment years 2010-11 (in TCA No.53 of 2016) and 2008-09 (in TCA No.771 of 2014) and seeks withdrawal of the same on account of low tax effect, per Circular bearing No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024. 2. Recording the aforesaid submissions, these tax case appeals are dismissed as withdrawn leaving the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate matter. No costs. [A.S.M, J.] [C.K, J.]

26.02.2026 Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes ssm To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.Nos. 53 of 2016 & 771 of 2014 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/02/2026 11:33:38 am )

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →