COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.TRIMEX SANDS PVT. LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the 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 dated August 8, 2019, which increased the monetary limit for pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in this case was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised in the appeal was left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated January 22, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertained to assessment year 2014-15 and challenged the ITAT's decision regarding a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. The assessee is M/s. Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. The Revenue's appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempted income, especially when neither Section 14A nor Rule 8D provides for any such restriction? The Revenue's contention, as presented by its learned Senior Standing Counsel, was that the Tribunal erred in restricting the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D to the extent of exempted income, arguing that the said provisions do not provide for such a restriction. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee's side.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.595 of 2019 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 16.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.595 of 2019 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Trimex Sands Pvt. Ltd., Chennai-18. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 22.1.2019 made in ITA.No.2529/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2014-15. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC & Ms.S.Premalatha, JSC Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J
We have elaborately heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, assisted by both Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel and Ms.S.Premalatha, learned Junior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant - Revenue. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.595 of 2019 2. This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 22.1.2019 made in ITA.No. 2529/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2014-15. 3. The Revenue has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D should be restricted to the extent of exempted income especially when neither Section 14A nor Rule 8D provides for any such restriction ?” 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.595 of 2019 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 raised 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. 16.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.595 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.595 of 2019 16.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026