Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem v....

The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem v. Sambandam Siva Textiles Ltd.,Kattuveppalai Patti,Seshanchavadi,Salem 636 014

High Court 13 Feb 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem v. Sambandam Siva Textiles Ltd.,Kattuveppalai Patti,Seshanchavadi,Salem 636 014
Date of order
13 Feb 2017
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem v. Sambandam Siva Textiles Ltd.,Kattuveppalai Patti,Seshanchavadi,Salem 636 014, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Issue: Whether bringing into existence of a new asset or obtaining a new advantage would amount to revenue expenditure or not?" 2.

Decision: In the instant case, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit imposed and the appeal is hence, dismissed as not pressed, preserving the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:13.02.2017 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr.Justice HULUVADI G.RAMESHAND The Hon'ble Dr. Justice ANITA SUMANTH TAX CASE APPEAL No.815 of 2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem .. Appellant Versus Sambandam Siva Textiles Ltd.,Kattuveppalai Patti,Seshanchavadi,Salem 636 014. .. Respondent Tax Case Appeal file under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "D" Bench, Chennai dated 6th October 2006 passed in I.T.A.No.1744/Mds/2006. For Appellant .. Mr.J.Narayanasamy JUDGMENT The Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue calling in question the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, "D" Bench, Chennai dated 6th October 2006 in ITA.No.1744 /Mds/2006 has been admitted on 4.7.2008 for consideration of the following substantial questions HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J. & DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. msr of law: "1. Whether the replacement of machinery parts will amount to revenue expenditure or not? 2. Whether bringing into existence of a new asset or obtaining a new advantage would amount to revenue expenditure or not?" 2. Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes No.21/2015, dated 10.12.2015 stipulates that appeals shall not be filed/pursued by the Department before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed Rs.20 lakhs. In the instant case, the tax effect is less than the monetary limit imposed and the appeal is hence, dismissed as not pressed, preserving the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. (H.G.R.,J) (A.S.M.,J) 13.02.2017 msr TAX CASE APPEAL No.815 of 2016
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