PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. ETA GENERAL PVT LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, brought to its attention CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue further submitted that the tax effect in the present appeals was less than this threshold limit. In light of this submission by the Revenue, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The court stated that the substantial question of law is kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II (Revenue) against the common order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'A' Bench, Chennai. The ITAT's order pertained to ITA Nos. 471/Mds/2016 and 472/Mds/2016 for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, concerning M/s. ETA General Pvt. Ltd. (Assessee). The High Court admitted the appeals on a substantial question of law regarding the ITAT's direction to the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's books of accounts concerning service commission debited on sales of air conditioners. Subsequently, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in remitting back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the books of accounts of the assessee whether the service commission was debited when the sales were made, and if the assessee charged service commission as soon as the sales were made, the claim of the assessee is to be allowed, as it was related to the sales of air conditioners? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the allowability of a deduction related to sales). Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, brought to the notice of the High Court CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals were less than the stipulated threshold limit.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 25.08.2022 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal Nos.654 and 655 of 2017 AND C.M.P.No.17298 of 2017 in T.C.A.No.655 of 2017 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-II 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road Chennai 600 034 .. Appellant in both T.C.As Vs. M/s.ETA General Pvt. Ltd. 71, Sterling Road Chennai 600 034 PAN : AAA CE 6650 P .. Respondent in both T.C.As Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.471/Mds/2016 and 472/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar in both T.C.As Senior Standing Counsel 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2017
For Respondent : Mr.G.Baskar in both T.C.As C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in question the correctness of the common order dated 05.10.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in respective I.T.A.Nos.471/Mds/2016 and 472/Mds/2016, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. By order dated 13.12.2017, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial question of law : “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in remitting back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to verify the books of accounts of assessee whether the service commission was debited when the sales made and if the assessee charged service commission as soon as the sales were made, the claim of assessee is to be allowed, as it was related to the sales of air conditioners?” 3. When these matters were taken up for consideration, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue brought to the notice of this court 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2017 the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, 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 these appeals are less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial question of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 25.08.2022
Index : Yes / No gya To 1.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle-2(1), Chennai 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI Chennai 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai R. MAHADEVAN, J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2017 AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. gya T.C.A.Nos.654 and 655 of 2017 25.08.2022
4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026