Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/...

Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S Mathi Leathers Pvt. Ltd.18. Kumarappa Street,Periamet, Chennai

High Court 11 Oct 2018 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S Mathi Leathers Pvt. Ltd.18. Kumarappa Street,Periamet, Chennai
Date of order
11 Oct 2018
Assessment year(s)
2000-01
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chennai v. M/S Mathi Leathers Pvt. Ltd.18. Kumarappa Street,Periamet, Chennai, the High Court (2018) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursue this Appeal in view of the low tax effect.Hence, the Appeal is dismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed for consideration, is leftopen.

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 DATED : 11.10.2018 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAMandTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal No.1571 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax,Chennai. ... Appellant -vs- M/s Mathi Leathers Pvt. Ltd.18. Kumarappa Street,Periamet, Chennai.... Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai 'B' Bench, dated 25.04.2008 in ITA No.2484/Mds/2007, forthe Assessment year 2000-01. For Appellant : Mr.S.Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.R.Sivaraman JUDGMENT [Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.]This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated 25.04.2008 in ITA No.2484/Mds/2007, for the Assessment year2000-01. 2.Heard Mr.S.Rajesh, learned Counsel for the Revenue and Mr.R.Sivaraman counsel for therespondent. 3. This Appeal has been admitted on 18.11.2008, on the following Substantial Question of Law;"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the additionmade on account of cash credits without verifying the credit worthiness of the creditors?� 4.We have perused the order of Assessment as well as the Order passed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax, and we find that the tax effect in this appeal is lesser than the threshold limit mentionedin Circular No.3 of 2008, dated 11.07.2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which fixesthe monetary limit as Rs.50,00,000/- for the Department to pursue the matter. Furthermore, theRevenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing features, by which the Circular No.3 of2018, dated 11.07.2018, cannot be applied. 5.Thus, for the above reasons, the Revenue cannot pursue this Appeal in view of the low tax effect.Hence, the Appeal is dismissed and the Substantial Question of Law, framed for consideration, is leftopen. No costs. [T.S.S., J.] & [V.B.S., J.]11.10.2018 mrm To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench. T.S.Sivagnanam, J.andV.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. msk/mrm T.C.A.No.1571 of 2008
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