PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. SHRI ELRED KUMAR SANTHANAM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the ground of low tax effect. The Revenue's counsel submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to the low tax effect, as per 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 stated to be below this threshold. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No decision was made on the merits of the substantial question of law.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, Chennai, filed two appeals (T.C.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2017) against the common order dated 20.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) 'B' Bench, Chennai. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, and challenged the ITAT's deletion of disallowances made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee is Shri Elred Kumar Santhanam. The appeals were admitted by the High Court on 23.01.2017.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) in the year under consideration as the statutory provisions are amply clear and in the context of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the term 'payable' would include amounts which are paid during the previous year? (Question of law, turning on Section 40(a)(ia)). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred in deleting the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). They contended that the term 'payable' in Section 40(a)(ia) should include amounts paid during the previous year, implying the disallowance was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.08.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.7 and 8 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-7, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai. .. Appellant in both Appeals -vs- Shri.Elred Kumar Santhanam, 20, Alagesan Street, West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045. PAN: AAD PE 2378 L .. Respondent in both Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 20.01.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.85 & 86/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, (In both Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar (In both Appeals) ****** 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2017 COMMON JUDGMENT (Delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.) These appeals filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income- tax Act, 1961 are directed against the common order dated 20.01.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.85 & 86/Mds/2015 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. 2.The appeals were admitted on 23.01.2017, on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) in the year under consideration as the statutory provisions are amply clear and in the context of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the term 'payable' would include amounts which are paid during the previous year?” 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – and Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2017 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 08.08.2019 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 these 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 question of law framed 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 appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.7 & 8 of 2017 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.Nos.7 and 8 of 2017 29.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026