THE COMMISSIONER OF vs. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the Revenue's submission was based on the increased monetary limit for appeals to the High Court. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission 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 fixed in the circular, allowing it to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'A' Bench. The appeal concerned the assessment year 2011-12 and related to a payment of Rs. 1,49,76,851 made by the assessee, M/s. Deloitte Haskins & Sells, to retiring partners. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, citing a low tax effect in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the payment of Rs. 1,49,76,851 made to retiring partners was on account of overriding title and thus an allowable expenditure, even though it was a self-imposed payment and therefore an application of income? This issue turns on the interpretation of provisions related to allowable business expenditure. 2. Whether gratuitous payments made to a retiring partner are to be treated as revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, even if not for the purpose of carrying on the business? This issue concerns the applicability of Section 37 for such payments. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee in the High Court. The assessee was represented by counsel. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, referencing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in this case was stated to be below this limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.564 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.564 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.11591 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.Deloitte Haskins & Sells ASV Ramana Towers, No.52, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. PAN: AACFD3771D ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 25.11.2016 made in ITA.No.2079/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : Mr.S.P.Chidambaram JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.564 of 2018 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 25.11.2016 made in ITA.No.2079/MDS/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2011-12. 3.The appeal was admitted on 27.08.2018 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs.1,49,76,851/- made to the retiring partners, was on account of over-riding title and therefore allowable expenditure even when the payment made is self-imposed by the Assessee and therefore is only application of income? (ii) Whether the gratuitous payments made to the retiring partner is to be treated as revenue expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the I.T. Act, even if the same is not for the purpose of carrying its business?" 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. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.564 of 2018 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. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 [2/2] cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.Deloitte Haskins & Sells ASV Ramana Towers, No.52, Venkatanarayana Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.564 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.564 of 2018 28.08.2019 [2/2] 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 37
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 933/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 932/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle… vs Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company…ITA 931/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company… vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), VadodaraITA 768/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026