COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.SUNSHINE ENTERPRISES

PDF · subscribers
TCA/575/2021HC Madras23 December 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice R. MAHADEVAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/Revenue regarding CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- for pursuing appeals before the High Court, observed that the tax effect in the present appeal was less than this threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in an appropriate case. No costs were awarded. The judgment does not provide a finding on the merits of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue, nor does it detail the reasoning of the ITAT or the ratio decidendi for the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 1991-92 and concerns the assessee, M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, Chennai. The dispute revolves around the availability of the benefit under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act on the export of granite. The procedural history indicates that the ITAT had previously ruled in favor of the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of Section 80HHC is available to the assessee on the export of granite? (Question of law) 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was eligible for the benefit of Section 80HHC on the export of granites, when such a benefit was available only for cut and polished granite? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue, through its counsel, brought to the notice of the High Court Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 80HHC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A. No. 575 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.12.2021 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A. No. 575 of 2021 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. ... Appellant Vs. M/s. Sunshine Enterprises, Chennai. ... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, in I.T.A. No. 2103/Mds/1993 for the assessment year 1991-92. For Appellant : Mrs. V.Pushpa Junior Standing Counsel

1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 575 of 2021 JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the order dated 12.09.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A. No. 2103/Mds/1993, relating to the assessment year 1991-92, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the benefit of 80HHC is available to the assessee on the export of granite? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had enough material to come to the conclusion that the assessee was eligble for the benefit of 80HHC on the export of granites, when such a benefit was available only for cut and polished granite?” 2. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 575 of 2021 wherein, it is stipulated that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases, where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 3. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 23.12.2021

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No Maya To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A. No. 575 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. Maya Tax Case Appeal No. 575 of 2021 Dated : 23.12.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 80HHC

All 1,083 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80HHC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →