Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri M. Ponnusamy on 18 February, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Business Circle XVI,
Chennai. ... Appellant
v.
Shri M. Ponnusamy ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Bench, Chennai dated 26.06.2009 passed in ITA.No.1699/Mds/2008 for
the Assessment Year 2004-05.
For Appellant : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan,
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr. V.P. Sengotuvel
Page 1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was 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 26.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C”
Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I..TA.No.1699/Mds/2008
for the Assessment Year 2004-05.
2. The appeal was admitted on 09.11.2010 on the following
Substantial Question s of Law:
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that joint venture
could not be ignored for attracting section 2(22)(e) of the
Act contrary to 229 ITR 444(SC)?
(ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal is right in dismissing the appeal
of the revenue when the legal fiction of deemed dividend
under section 2(22)(2) comes into play as soon as the
moneys paid by the company to the Assessee?
Page 2/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
(iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal is right in rejecting the addition
without considering that the withdrawals made when there
is a debit balance in the current account is treated as
deemed dividend as per 76 ITR 369 (Bom) confirmed by
the Apex Court in 105 ITR 642 (SC)?"
.3. We have heard Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.P. Sengotuvel, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondent.
4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial
Question 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.
Page 3/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on
22.02.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
18.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai “C” Bench
Page 4/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
Rj
Tax Case Appeal No.708 of 2010
18.02.2021
Page 5/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
