ITO, CHENNAI vs. SHAM SUNDER N.KHEMLANI, BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the definition of 'tax' under Section 2(43) does not include surcharge and cess. Since the tax amount itself was less than ₹10,00,000, the appeal was not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a disallowance of ₹33,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69B. The total tax demand, including surcharge and cess, exceeded ₹10,00,000.
What were the issues?
Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable when the tax amount is less than ₹10,00,000, excluding surcharge and cess.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69B,Section 2(43)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ (SMC
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal, Revenue is aggrieved that the ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted a disallowance of �33,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’).
ITA No. 1170/Mds/2017. :- 2 -:
I find from the assessment order that the gross tax comes to �9,69,853/-. Though alongwith the Surcharge / Education Cess, the total demand exceeds �10,00,000/-, definition of ‘tax’ given in section 2(43) of the Act, does not give any scope for including such items in ‘tax’. Since the tax is less than �10,00,000/-, I am of the opinion that by virtue of CBDT Circular No.21/2015, dated 10th December, 2015, an appeal will not lie to the Tribunal.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 3.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 21st August, 2017, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 69B
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax… vs M/S Rajguru Foods, BijapurITA 77/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Alka Ajit Shah, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 20(1)(1), MumbaiITA 1915/MUM/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2011-12
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Rama Krishna Jewellers Private Limited…ITA 1289/DEL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Front Line Guards Private Limited, Navi… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1)(1)…ITA 7909/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Haripa Industries, Kolkata vs ITO, Central Circle 4(1), KolkataITA 2283/KOL/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026