Case LawHigh Court › The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax...

The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle Ii v. Mr.s.i.karthi

High Court 21 Jun 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle Ii v. Mr.s.i.karthi
Date of order
21 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
2009-2010
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle Ii v. Mr.s.i.karthi, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.

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: 21/6/2016 C O R A M The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar Tax Case Appeal No.392 of 2016 The Principal Commissioner of Income TaxCentral Circle IINo.108 Nungambakkam High RoadChennai 600 034. ...Appellantvs ...Respondent Mr.S.I.Karthi Prayer:Appeal filed against the order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 30/6/2015 inITA No.1948/Mds/2014 against the order of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax(A) (C)- II, Chennai -34, dated 26.3.2014 made inITA.No.203/2011-12 for the assessment Year 2009-2010 and againstthe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle II (5),Chennai dated 23.12.2011 made in PAN NO. for theassessment Year 2009-2010. For appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax. This Appeal has been filed against the order of the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Madras, dated 30/6/2015. 2. The substantial question of law raised in the instantappeal is:- “Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in holdingthat the amount received as advance as perthe agreements entered into by the assessee https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with different film producers, promising torender professional services were nottaxable as income, even though the assesseewas following cash system of accounting?” 3. Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel forIncome Tax submitted that the tax implication in the instantappeal is less than the ceiling limit fixed by the Circularbearing No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015. He further submittedthat as per the Circular, Tax Case Appeals have been instructedto be withdrawn, subject to the matters covered under thecircular and there is no audit objection also. 4. Placing on record the above submissions, whiledismissing the Tax Case Appeal No.392 of 2016, as withdrawn,substantial question of law raised is left open. No costs.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mvs. To 1.The Commissioner of Income Tax, New No.46 (Old No.108) Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai 600 034. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, central Circle II (5) i/C Chennai. central Circle II (5) i/C Chennai. 3.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai. +1cc to M/S.T.R.SenthilKumar, Advocate sr.34536 Tax Case Appeal No.392 of 2016 Mp[co]srg 25/07/2016
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