COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S. ENTERPRISING
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which raised the monetary threshold for appeals to the High Court to Rs. 1 crore. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these cases was below this limit. Consequently, the substantial question of law framed at the time of admission was left open. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek restoration of the appeals if the tax effect was found to be above the threshold limit, allowing them to be heard and decided on merits. No costs were awarded. The specific findings of the ITAT regarding Section 40A(3) were not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The ITAT had held that Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not applicable to the assessee's case and had deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Revenue challenged this decision before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act. The appeals were admitted on a substantial question of law concerning the applicability of Section 40A(3). The assessee is M/s. Enterprising Enterprises, and the appellant is the Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Ward III (3), Chennai.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 40A(3) will not apply to the assessee's case and deleted the additions made? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's decision, which is under challenge, implies that the assessee likely argued for the non-applicability of Section 40A(3). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue submitted that the appeals were not being pursued due to the Low Tax Effect, as per 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 these cases was below this threshold.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Ward III (3), Chennai. ... Appellant in all appeals Vs. M/s.Enterprising Enterprises, No.9, 50th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. ... Respondent in all appeals Tax Case Appeals in T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench, dated 20.02.2015 in I.T.A.Nos.338/Mds/2013 and 98/Mds/2013, respectively for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. For Appellant : Mrs.V.Pushpa Standing Counsel in all appeals For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar in all appeals Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T (Judgment was delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) We have heard Mrs.V.Pushpa, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.M.P.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee. 2.The above appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the order dated 20.02.2015 made in I.T.A.Nos.338/Mds/2013 and 98/Mds/2013, on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. 3.The above appeals were admitted on 17.11.2015 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that Section 40A(3) will not apply to the assessee's case and deleted the additions made?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 4.The learned 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 these cases is less than the threshold limit. 5.In the light of the said submissions, the above Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn on account of the Low Tax Effect. The substantial question of law framed is left open. In the event the tax effect in these 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 above appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] mkn 24.03.2021 Index : Yes / No Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 Internet : Yes
To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, “C” Bench. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Ward III (3), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 M.DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mkn T.C.A.Nos.916 and 917 of 2015 24.03.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- 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