PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI.S.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in the present case was stated to be below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed by the Revenue was 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 fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Coimbatore, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'C' Bench, Chennai. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and concerns the assessee, Shri S.R. Lakshmi Narayan. The dispute revolves around the assessee's eligibility for a deduction under Section 54F of the Income-tax Act. The ITAT had ruled in favour of the assessee, allowing the deduction. The Revenue is challenging this decision before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has not fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under Section 54F? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee's counsel before the High Court. The appeal was dismissed based on the Revenue's submission. Revenue's Contentions: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.557 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.557 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, No.63, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. .. Appellant -vs- Shri.S.R.Lakshmi Narayan, 15/222, Sree Lakshmi Farms, Perumpallam, Amaravathi Nagar, Udumalpet, Tirupur-642 102. PAN: AGE PL 1232 D .. Respondent Appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the order dated 08.02.2017, made in I.T.A.No.419/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Mr.S.Sridhar ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.557 of 2017 JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 08.02.2017, made in I.T.A.No.419/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai for the assessment year 2011-12. 2.The appeal has been filed raising the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act when the assessee has not fulfilled all the conditions prescribed under Section 54F?” 3.Heard Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.K.G.Usharani, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned Counsel for the respondent. 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.557 of 2017 effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019, dated 08.08.2019 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 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 question of law framed is 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. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. T.S.Sivagnanam, J. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.557 of 2017 and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.No.557 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026