PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. MECAPLAST INDIA P LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant that the Revenue was not pursuing these appeals due to low tax effect, in terms of CBDT Circular No.17/2019, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court to Rs.1 Crore. The Court noted that the tax effect in these cases was below the threshold limit. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground. The substantial questions of law framed were left open. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were imposed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, Chennai, filed three appeals (T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 of 2017) against the common order dated 15.07.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Chennai. These appeals pertained to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, and concerned the assessee, M/s. Mecaplast India P. Ltd. The appeals challenged the ITAT's decision regarding the eligibility of the assessee for claims on revenue expenses and carry forward of losses, even though the business was allegedly not yet set up. The appeals were filed under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal was asked to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in holding that the assessee is eligible for claims on revenue expenses and carry forward of losses to be set off against other income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, despite the business not being set up. 2. Whether the ITAT correctly appreciated Section 3 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which defines the previous year, and whether, in the absence of a set-up business, there was no previous year for business income, thus disallowing expenses and rendering the ITAT's order perverse. 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in not following the decisions in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bombay) and CWT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC). The Revenue argued that as the assessee's business had not yet been set up, there was no previous year under the head of business income, and therefore, no business income or loss could be computed, nor could any expenses be allowed. The Revenue contended that the ITAT's order was perverse. The Revenue relied on the decisions in Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT and CWT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 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.800 to 802 of 2017 and C.M.P.Nos.20057 & 20058 of 2017 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 4, No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai-600 034. .. Appellant in all Appeals -vs- M/s.Mecaplast India P. Ltd., P-43, 8th Avenue, Mahindra World City, Chengleput Taluk, Kanchipuram District. PAN: AAE CM 2854 M .. Respondent in all Appeals Appeals under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 15.07.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.6074, 6075 & 6076/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, (In all Appeals) Senior Standing Counsel : assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, Standing Counsel ****** 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 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 15.07.2016, made in I.T.A.Nos.6074, 6075 & 6076/Mds/2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai for the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 2.The appeals have been filed raising the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was correct and justified in holding that the assessee is eligible for the claim on revenue expenses and carry forward of losses to be set off against other income under the Income-tax Act, 1961, even though the assessee had not yet set up business? (ii) Whether the ITAT was correct and justified in not appreciating the provisions of Section 3 of the I.T.Act, as per which, in respect of a newly set up business from the date of setting up of business up to the end of the financial year. Since the assessee's business had not yet been set up, therefore, there was no previous year under the head business income. Accordingly, there was no question of computing business income/loss and, therefore, there was 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 of 2017 no question of allowing any expenses and whether as a result, the order under reference has turned perverse both on facts as well as in law? and (iii) Whether the ITAT was correct and justified in not following the decisions in the case of Western India Vegetable Products Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 151 (Bombay) and CWT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 478 (SC)?” 3.Heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant. 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 this case 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 is above the threshold limit 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 of 2017 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. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. (T.S.S., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 29.08.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order abr To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai. 2.M/s.Mecaplast India P. Ltd., P-43, 8th Avenue, Mahindra World City, Chengleput Taluk, Kanchipuram District. 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 of 2017 T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. (abr) T.C.A.Nos.800 to 802 of 2017 29.08.2019 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in
More judgments on Section 3
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO-1(1), AllahabadITA 211/ALLD/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO- 1(1), AllahabadITA 210/ALLD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad vs ITO-1(1), AllahabadITA 209/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026