The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Kesari Sanjay Kundalia
[Citation -2020-LL-0827-28]

Citation 2020-LL-0827-28
Appellant Name The Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name Kesari Sanjay Kundalia
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 27/08/2020
Assessment Year 2014-15
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags substantial question of law • monetary limit • low tax effect
Bot Summary: This appeal, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 01.01.2019 made in ITA.No. 2115/chny/2019 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for the assessment year 2014-15. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowance made under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules 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 effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. It is further submitted that the tax effect in this case is less than the threshold limit. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of the low tax effect. 350 of 2019 mention to this Court to restore the appeal to be heard and decided on merits.


TCA.No.350 of 2019 In High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2020 Coram : Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and Honourable Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYAN Tax Case Appeal No.350 of 2019 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Shri Kesari Sanjay Kundalia Old No.114, New No.36, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai, PAN APDPS7301G ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 01.01.2019 made in ITA.No.2115/chny/2019 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench. For Appellant: Mr.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel Respondent: Mr.R.Sivaraman 1/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.350 of 2019 Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J We have heard Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for appellant Revenue. 2. This appeal, filed by Revenue under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against order dated 01.01.2019 made in ITA.No.2115/chny/2019 on file of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, for assessment year 2014-15. 3. appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1.Whether Tribunal ought to have applied decision of Apex Court in case of Maxopp Investment Ltd reported in 402 ITR page 640 wherein purpose behind Section 14A was explained not to permit deduction of expenditure in relation to income, which does not form part of total income is to ensure that assessee does not get double benefit? 2/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.350 of 2019 2. Whether Tribunal was right in deleting disallowance made under Section 14A of Income Tax Act read with Rule 8D of Income Tax Rules? 4. learned Senior Standing Counsel for appellant submits that above appeal is not pursued by Revenue on account of low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes. By said Circular, monetary limit for filing or pursuing appeal before High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that tax effect in this case is less than threshold limit. 5. In light of said submissions, above tax case appeal is dismissed on account of low tax effect. substantial question of law framed is left open. In event tax effect is above threshold limit fixed in said circular, liberty is granted to Revenue to make 3/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.350 of 2019 mention to this Court to restore appeal to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S., J.) (P.S.N., J.) 27.08.2020 Internet: Yes /No Index : Yes/No To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'B' Bench. 4/5 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.No.350 of 2019 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND PUSHPA SATHYANARAYAN,J sk TCA.No.350 of 2019 27.08.2020 5/5 http://www.judis.nic.in Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Kesari Sanjay Kundalia
Report Error