THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. AGILE ELECTRIC SUB ASSEMBLY

PDF · subscribers
TCA/816/2016HC Madras30 August 2019Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice T. S. SIVAGNANAM4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the grounds of low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Court noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 1 Crore. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed for the appeal were left undecided. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to mention the case for restoration if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing for a decision on merits. No costs were awarded.

What were the facts?

The Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 02.05.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai 'D' Bench. The appeal pertains to assessment year 2009-10. The assessee is M/s. Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the method for calculating disallowance under Rule 8D. The Revenue sought to challenge the ITAT's decision that Section 14A was not applicable to investments made for acquiring shares of sister concerns and that the Assessing Officer was bound to apply Rule 8D once a nexus between exempted income-bearing investments and interest-bearing funds was established.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 14A are not applicable in respect of investments made for acquiring the shares of sister concerns? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating that once the nexus is established between the exempted income bearing investments under Section 10 and interest bearing funds, when the provisions of Section 14A are attracted irrespective of the receipt or accrual of exempt income, then the Assessing Officer is bound to apply Rule 8D for arriving at exempt income? Assessee's arguments: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue submitted that the appeal was 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 this case was stated to be below this threshold.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14A,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

TCA.No.816 of 2016 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 30.8.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.816 of 2016 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai ...Appellant Vs M/s.Agile Electric Sub Assembly Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Agile Electric Drives Technologies & Holdings Pvt.Ltd.), Chennai-45. ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 02.5.2016 made in ITA.No.1896/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman Judgment was delivered by

T.S.Sivagnanam,J

We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar and Mrs.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.816 of 2016 Sivaraman, 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 02.5.2016 made in ITA.No. 1896/Mds/2014 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench for the assessment year 2009-10. 3. The appeal was admitted on 11.1.2017 on the following substantial questions of law : “i. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 14A are not applicable in respect of investments made for acquiring the shares of sister concerns ? and ii. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not appreciating the fact that once the nexus is established between the exempted income bearing investments under Section 10 and interest bearing funds when the provisions of Section 14A are attracted irrespective of the receipt or accrual of exempt income, then the Assessing Officer is bound to apply Rule 8D for arriving at exempt income ?” 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 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.816 of 2016 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 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. 30.8.2019 Internet: Yes To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench. RS 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.816 of 2016 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J RS TCA.No.816 of 2016 30.8.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in

More judgments on Section 14A

All 15,875 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →