Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S.A.R.Housing (P) Ltd on 20 April, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.04.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai. ... Appellant
Vs.
M/s.A.R.Housing (P) Ltd.,
No.32, Nathamuni Street,
Naduvankarai, Anna Nagar East,
Chennai – 600 040. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"C" Bench, dated 11.09.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.623/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 11.09.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai
"C" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.623/Mds/2015 for the
assessment year 2007-08. The above appeal has been admitted on
27.07.2016 on the following Substantial Questions of Law:
"1.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper by
holding that the capital gains tax paid Estate of Meera
Dawson is to be considered as tax paid by the assessee?
2.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper
especially when the receipt in the hands of the assessee in
the capacity as confirming party is in the nature of business
income and liable to be taxed as determined by the CIT(A)?
3.Is not the finding of the Tribunal wrong and
perverse by introducing the fiction of Section 50 C
especially when the said issue was not all discussed in the
assessment order nor in the CIT (A) order?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 2/5
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
4.Whether the finding of the Tribunal is proper
especially when the assessee has claimed exemption stating
that the profit on sale of property is to be taxed separately
as AOP and that too without providing its claim?”
2. We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the appellant/Revenue and Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for
M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, learned counsel for the respondent/assessee.
3. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial
Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain
subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct
Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for
resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the
President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on
17th March 2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 3/5
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
4.Learned counsel for the respondent/assessee submitted that the
assessee had availed the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and that the
respondent/assessee had already been issued with Form–3 on
10.12.2020.
5.Since the respondent/assessee had been issued with Form-3,
nothing survives for adjudication in the above appeal. Recording the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent/assessee, the
Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [R.H., J.]
20.04.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
mkn
To
1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai "C" Bench
2.The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 4/5
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
and
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mkn
Tax Case Appeal No.502 of 2016
20.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page 5/5
