PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S INDOWIND ENERGY LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the Revenue's submission that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the fixed threshold, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras “B” Bench. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2008-09 and challenges the ITAT's decision regarding a bad debt write-off and a higher claim of depreciation for calculating book profit. The appeal was admitted on 28.08.2018, raising two substantial questions of law. The Revenue later submitted that the appeal was 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.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in allowing the bad debt written off on account of an advance made for the purchase of land to M/s. Wipro Finance Ltd. when the assessee is not in the business of real estate? This question turns on the provisions related to bad debts and the nature of the assessee's business. 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing a higher claim of depreciation while calculating the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, when the assessee had not disclosed it by way of a note forming part of the annual accounts as specified in Circular No. 2/89/No. 1/17-87-CI-V of the Ministry of Industry? This question relates to the computation of book profit and disclosure requirements. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred on both counts. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.558 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2020 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM & THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.558 of 2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2 No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 600 034.
... Appellant Vs. M/s.Indowind Energy Ltd, Kothari Buildings, IV floor, 114, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai - 600 034. PAN : AAA CI 1806 M
... Respondent Tax Case Appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the order dated 25.10.2016 made in I.T.A.No.1824/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, for the assessment year 2008 - 09
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman For Mr.S.Sridhar 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.558 of 2018 Judgment
(Judgment was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM.J) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, accepting notice for the respondent. 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 25.10.2016 made in I.T.A.No.1824/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, for the assessment year 2008 - 09. 3. The Tax case appeal was admitted on 28.08.2018 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct in allowing the bad debt written off on account of advance made for the purchase of land to M/s.Wipro Finance Ltd. when the assessee is not into the business of real estate? and (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct in allowing higher claim of depreciation while calculating the book profit under Section 115JB of the Act, when the assessee had not disclosed by way of a note forming part of annual accounts as specified in Circular No.2/89/No.1/17-87-CI-V of the Ministry of Industry?” 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.558 of 2018 4. The learned 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. 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 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 the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.
(T.S.S.J.,) (V.B.S.J.,)
07.07.2020 raja Index : yes/no Internet : yes/no Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Chennai. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.No.558 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM.J., and V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.J., raja Tax Case Appeal No.558 of 2018 07.07.2020 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026