COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S.TAMILNADU SMALL
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, in its judgment delivered on 21.10.2024, noted the submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue. The submission was that as per CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024, the tax effect in the instant case was less than the monetary limit imposed. Consequently, the Revenue requested that the appeal be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised open for adjudication at a later point of time. Recording this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal for low tax effect. The substantial questions of law were expressly kept open for adjudication at the appropriate stage. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle III, Chennai, filed a Tax Case Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai, dated 19.12.2014, made in I.T.A.No.1566/Mds/2014. The appeal challenges the Tribunal's decision regarding the allowability of provision for leave salary as an expenditure. The assessee is M/s. Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd. The appeal was filed in 2015. The procedural history relevant to the disposal of the appeal is the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding the low tax effect as per CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024.
What were the issues?
The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that provision for leave salary is allowable expenditure even though it is not actually paid before the due date of filing the return of income, which is against Section 43B(f)? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in ignoring that Section 43B(f) was only introduced in the Finance Act 2001, which came into effect from 01.04.2022? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Argued that provision for leave salary is not allowable if not paid before the due date of filing the return of income, citing Section 43B(f). Further argued that Section 43B(f) was introduced by the Finance Act 2001, effective from 01.04.2022, implying a potential misunderstanding or misapplication of the provision by the Tribunal. The Revenue also brought to the court's notice CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 regarding the monetary limit for appeals.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.No.884 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.10.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN Tax Case Appeal No.884 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle III, Chennai. .... Appellant Vs. M/s.Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Thiru.Vi.Ka.Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai-32. .... Respondent ----- Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench Chennai, dated 19.12.2014 made in I.T.A.No.1566/Mds/2014. For Appellant : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiyagarajan, Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Ramesh Kumar J U D G M E N T 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.884 of 2015 (Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that provision for leave salary is allowable expenditure even though it is not actually paid before the due date of filing the return of income which is against the Section 43B(f)? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in ignoring that the Section 43B(f) was only introduced in the Finance Act 2001 which came into effect from 01.04.2022? 2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of time. 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.884 of 2015 3. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at appropriate stage. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.) 21.10.2024 NCS : Yes/No 1/2 KST To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'C' Bench, Chennai. 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.884 of 2015 R.SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C.SARAVANAN, J. KST T.C.A.No.884 of 2015 21.10.2024 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026