THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.INTERNATIONAL BAKERY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted that the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court had been increased to Rs. 1 Crore, and the tax effect in these respective cases was less than this threshold. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission were left open. The Revenue was granted liberty to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT on the issues of goodwill and non-compete fee were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed these appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'B' Bench. The appeals pertain to assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2005-06, and 2001-02. The appeals were admitted on 21.12.2015. The assessee is M/s. International Bakery Products Ltd. The appeals were listed for hearing before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide two substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made on account of goodwill (restrictive covenant) should be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure. 2. Whether the ITAT was right in holding that an amount of Rs. 250 lakhs, though termed as "goodwill", was in fact a non-compete fee paid by the assessee, even though the assessee was not a party to the agreement and was doing job work for Auro Food Ltd. and Britannia Industries Ltd. The Revenue argued that the appeals were not being pursued due to low tax effect, citing 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 below this threshold. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the assessee on the merits of the case, other than their appearance through counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
TCA.Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs M/s.International Bakery Products Ltd., New No.34, Old No.78, 2A, II Floor, C.S.Tower, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 001.
...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 31.10.2012 made in ITA.Nos.1418 to 1420/Mds/2011, 1421 to 1424/Mds/2011 and 1601/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, 2002- 03 to 2005-06 and 2001-02. For Appellant: Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, SSC assisted by M.S.Rajesh, SC For Respondent: Mr.R.Saravana Kumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 Revenue and Mr.R.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 31.10.2012 made in ITA.Nos.1418 to 1420/Mds/2011, 1421 to 1424/Mds/2011 and 1601/Mds/2012 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench for the assessment years 1998-99 to 2000-01, 2002-03 to 2005-06 and 2001-02. 3.The appeals were admitted on 21.12.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “1.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the addition of Rs.25 lakhs made on account of goodwill (restrictive covenant) is to be allowed as deferred revenue expenditure? 2.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs.250 lakhs though termed as "goodwill" was in fact non compete fee paid by the assessee even though the assessee is not a party to the agreement and doing job work for the Auro Food Ltd. and Britannia Industries Ltd?" 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 08.8.2019 issued by the Central 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 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 the respective 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 questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases 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.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To 1.M/s.International Bakery Products Ltd., New No.34, Old No.78, 2A, II Floor, C.S.Tower, Bazullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 001. 2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.808 to 815 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026