PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law on merits. Instead, the Revenue brought to the court's notice CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which mandates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this monetary limit. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn, in light of the aforementioned submission and circular. The court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law remain open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
These are four Tax Case Appeals (TCAs) filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chennai (Revenue) against M/s. EIH Associated Hotels Ltd. (Assessee) for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. The appeals challenge a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'C' Bench, dated 01.07.2016. The High Court admitted these appeals on substantial questions of law. 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/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was below this threshold.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that investments made in sister concerns are not liable for disallowance under Section 14A, as the section and Rule 8D do not provide for such exemption. 2. Whether the ITAT was justified in not appreciating that investments in shares of sister concerns yielded only dividend income, which is exempt, and therefore Section 14A is applicable. 3. For TCAs 677 and 678 of 2017: Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made to book profits under Section 115JB, being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income, despite Clause (f) of Explanation (1) of Section 115JB providing for such addition. 4. For TCAs 679 and 680 of 2017: Whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 40A(ia) for non-deduction of tax at source on commission paid to banks for credit card usage, considering CBDT Notification No. 56/2012 was effective from 01.01.2013 and the assessment years were earlier. Assessee's arguments were not recorded. Revenue argued that Section 14A and Rule 8D do not provide exemption for investments in sister concerns and that expenditure to earn exempt income should be added to book profits under Section 115JB. Revenue also argued for the applicability of Section 40A(ia) for non-deduction of TDS on bank commission.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 60 0034. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus M/s.EIH Associated Hotels Ltd., 1/24, GST Road, Meenambakkam, Chennai - 600 027.
... Respondent in all TCAs (PAN No.AAA CE 2125 M) Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “C” Bench, dated 01.07.2016 in I.T.A.Nos.1673/Mds/2015, 1674/Mds/2015, 1919/Mds/2015 & 1920/Mds/2015. Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 For Appellant in all TCAs' : Mr.Karthick Ranganathan Standing Counsel For Respondent in all TCAs' : Mr.N.V.Balaji COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the common order dated 01.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench in I.T.A.Nos.1673/Mds/2015, 1674/Mds/2015, 1919/Mds/2015 & 1920/Mds/2015, relating to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. 2. By order dated 14.12.2017, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: “(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in holding that investments made in sister concerns are not liable for disallowance under Section 14A when the provisions of the said Section as well as Rule 8D do not provide for any such exemption? and Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in not appreciating the fact that investment in shares of sister concerns also yielded only divided income, which is exempt from income tax and hence, provisions of Section 14A are applicable? T.C.A.No.677 and 678 of 2017: (iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct and justified in deleting the addition made to book profits computed under Section 115JB being expenditure incurred to earn exempt income even though Clause (f) of Explanation (1) of Section 115JB, which specifically provides for addition of such expenditure incurred to earn exempt income? and T.C.A.No.679 and 680 of 2017: (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is justified in deleting the addition made under Section 40a(ia) for non deduction of tax at source on commission paid to banks towards use of its credit cards when the CBDT Notification No.56/2012, dated 03.12.2012 was with effect from 01.01.2013 only and for the earlier assessment years?" 3.When the matters were 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, Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 wherein, it is stipulated that appeal 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 is less than the threshold limit. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned 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 questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 26.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No r n s Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-II (1), Chennai - 34. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s T.C.A.Nos.677 to 680 of 2017 26.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026