THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AMSTEEL CASTINGS P LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on account of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No.17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect in the respective cases was less than the increased threshold limit of Rs.1 Crore for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case before the Court for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The judgment did not decide the merits of the substantial questions of law.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, filed two appeals (TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015) before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against a common order dated 05.08.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. These appeals pertained to the assessment year 2009-10 and challenged the ITAT's decisions regarding disallowance under Section 80IA, charging of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, and disallowance of interest under Section 14 read with Rule 8D. The appeals were admitted on 24.07.2015 on specific substantial questions of law.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. (TCA.No.562 of 2015) Whether the ITAT was right in allowing a disallowance under Section 80IA when the assessee failed to file the signed copy of ITR-V within the due date as stipulated under Section 139 read with Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. (TCA.No.562 of 2015) Whether the ITAT was right in restoring the matter of charging interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C to the Assessing Officer (AO) for recomputation based on the Supreme Court judgment in Pranoy Roy, which dealt with an earlier assessment year and after which Section 234A was amended by the Finance Act, 2006, making it inapplicable to the present case (assessment year 2009-10)? 3. (TCA.No.563 of 2015) Whether the ITAT was right in holding that the disallowance of interest made under Section 14 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules was not proper? Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No.17/2019 which increased the monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The tax effect in these cases was below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 139,Section 80IA,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Amsteel Castings P. Ltd., No.1C, Prince Apartments, No.59, Ormes Road, Chennai - 600 010. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 05.08.2013 made in ITA.No.967/Mds/2013 and ITA.No.1194/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 Revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 05.08.2013 made in ITA.No.967/Mds/2013 and ITA.No.1194/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3.The appeals were admitted on 24.07.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : TCA.No.562 of 2015: i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance made under Section 80IA is to be allowed especially when the assessee has not filed the signed copy of the ITR-V within the due date as stipulated under Section 139 read with Rule 12(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? ii) Whether the Tribunal is right in restoring the matter of charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C back to AO with a direction to recompute the same as per judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranoy Roy and another reported in 309 ITR page 231 which dealt with assessment year 95-96 after which 234A was amended by Finance Act, 2006 and hence not applicable to the facts of the present case which dealt with assessment year 2009-10? TCA.No.563 of 2015: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance of interest made under Section 14 read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules not proper?" 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 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 the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 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 in the respective cases 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Amsteel Castings P. Ltd., No.1C, Prince Apartments, No.59, Ormes Road, Chennai - 600 010. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.562 and 563 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026