Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax Erode v. S.k....

Commissioner Of Income Tax Erode v. S.k.m.egg Products Export (Ind.) Ltd.180 Gandhiji Road, Erode

High Court 18 Mar 2019 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax Erode v. S.k.m.egg Products Export (Ind.) Ltd.180 Gandhiji Road, Erode
Date of order
18 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax Erode v. S.k.m.egg Products Export (Ind.) Ltd.180 Gandhiji Road, Erode, the High Court (2019) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: For Respondent : Mr.Senthil Kumar This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 1.10.2007 madein ITA No.2506/Mds/2005, by raising the following substantialquestion of law: "Whet...

Decision: In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial question of law for determination in an appropriatecase.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIAND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal No.279 of 2009 Commissioner of Income Tax Erode... Appellant Vs. S.K.M.Egg Products Export (Ind.) Ltd.180 Gandhiji Road, Erode. .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 1.10.2007 made in ITANo.2506/Mds/2005 against the Appellate order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A)-1, Coimbatore, dated 10.08.2005 made in AppealNo.235/05-06, and against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle I,Erode, dated 30.09.2004, 23.12.2004 made in PA N/GIRNO.AACCS7106G/ICCS004. For Respondent : Mr.Senthil Kumar This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue callingin question the correctness of the order passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai, dated 1.10.2007 madein ITA No.2506/Mds/2005, by raising the following substantialquestion of law: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the casethe Tribunal was right in holding that the interest https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ payable to IFCI, a provision for contingentliability, need not be added back to the book profitas per explanation (c) to Section 115 JB(1)?" 2. When the matter is taken up for admission, the learnedStanding Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instructionissued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide CircularNo.3/2018 dated 11.7.2018 wherein it is stipulated that appealsshall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the HighCourt in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.50 lakhs. 3. In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be lessthan the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filedby the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open thesubstantial question of law for determination in an appropriatecase. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// ssk Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-I, Coimbatore. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'D' Bench, Chennai 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle I, Erode. +1 cc to Mr.N.Muthukumar, Advocate, Sr.No. 25501 PP(CO)CSL/27.06.2019 TCA No.279 of 2009
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan