COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.TNQ BOOK & JOURNALS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeals were not being pursued due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were 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. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) dated January 20, 2016. The Tribunal's order pertained to assessment year 2010-11 and concerned appeals filed by M/s. TNQ Books & Journals Pvt. Ltd. (assessee). The appeals before the High Court were admitted on September 2, 2016, on specific substantial questions of law. The Revenue sought to withdraw these appeals due to a low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore. The tax effect in these cases was below this threshold.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on borrowed capital is allowable as soon as the land was given for construction, even though the land was put to use for business only after the completion of construction of the building? This question turns on the interpretation of Section 36(1)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for the purchase of land, as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii)? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing depreciation at the rate of 60% by treating the purchase as computer software, whereas the assessee had only purchased the right to use the software, and thus the allowable depreciation rate should be only 25%? Assessee's contentions were not recorded. The Revenue argued that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.596 & 597/2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.596 & 597 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III(2), Chennai-34 ...Appellant Vs M/s.TNQ Books & Journals Pvt.Ltd., Chennai-41. ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 20.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.752 and 1368/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. For Appellant: Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, SC For Respondent: Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by
T.S.Sivagnanam,J)
We have heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.596 & 597/2016 appellant – Revenue and Mr.Rahul Unnikrishnan, 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 20.1.2016 made in ITA.Nos.752 and 1368/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2010-11. 3. The appeals were admitted on 02.9.2016 on the following substantial questions of law : “TCA.No.596 of 2016 : i. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest on borrowed capital is allowable, as soon as the land was given for construction whereas the land was put to use for business only after completion of construction of building ? And ii. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for purchase of land as per the provisions of Section 36(1)(iii)? TCA.No.597 of 2016 : Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing the 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.596 & 597/2016 depreciation at the rate of 60% treating it as purchase of computer software whereas the assessee has purchased only the right to use the software and hence, the rate of depreciation allowable is only 25%?” 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.)
30.8.2019 Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No Internet: Yes (or) No 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.596 & 597/2016 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.596 & 597/2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. TCA.Nos.596 & 597 of 2016 30.8.2019 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Hcy Industrial Parks Private Limited, Mumbai vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…ITA 1899/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Shah Brothers, West Singhbhum vs ACIT/DCIT, Cen Cir-1, RanchiITA 239/RAN/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- Ami Industries, Surendranagar vs The ITO Ward 1, SurendranagarITA 148/RJT/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026