THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. SHRI .G. KARTHIK
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on a submission by the Revenue's counsel that the appeal was not being pursued due to a low tax effect, in line with CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. This circular increased the monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeals before the High Court to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in this case was below that threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were imposed. The ITAT's order on the merits of the Section 54F deduction was not decided by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2013-14 and concerns the eligibility of the assessee, Shri G. Karthik, for a deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act. The dispute involves whether the conditions for this deduction were satisfied by the assessee and if holding more than one residential property, other than the new asset purchased, impacts eligibility.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 54F, especially when the conditions prescribed therein have not been satisfied by the Assessee? 2. Whether deduction under Section 54F is available to the Assessee even if the Assessee holds more than one residential property other than the new assets purchased? The Revenue argued that the conditions for Section 54F deduction were not met by the assessee. The assessee's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, beyond the fact that they were represented by counsel. The judgment does not mention any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side for these arguments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.No.768 of 2018 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.768 of 2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Shri G.Karthik PAN: AKKPK4869R ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 28.02.2018 made in ITA.No.2541/MDS/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2013-14. For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Sriraman for Mr.S.Sridhar JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J.) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, and Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.768 of 2018 appellant/revenue and Mr.A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. 2.This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 28.02.2018 made in ITA.No.2541/MDS/2017 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment year 2013-14. 3.The appeal has been filed by raising the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Assessee was eligible for deduction u/s.54F especially when the conditions prescribed therein have not been satisfied by the Assessee? 2.Whether deduction u/s.54F is available to the Assessee even if the Assessee holds more than one residential property other than the new assets purchased? 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.768 of 2018 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. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are 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. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 28.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.768 of 2018 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.No.768 of 2018 28.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026