Madras High Court
M/S.Tamil Nadu Industrial ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 26 February, 2021
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
M/s.Tamil Nadu Industrial Development
Corporation Limited,
19A, Rukmani Lakshmipathy Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Appellant
Vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle – III (2),
Chennai – 600 034,
presently the Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward – 19(4),
Chennai – 600 034. ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A"
Bench, dated 05.01.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.351/Mds/2012.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan
for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan,
Senior Standing Counsel
assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa
Page 1/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.)
This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order
dated 05.01.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras
"A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No 351/Mds/2012 for the
assessment year 2007-08.
2.The appellant/assessee has raised the following Substantial
Questions of Law:
“1)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the loss
arising from write off of the investments made in the
companies promoted by the assessee would constitute
capital loss and not business loss?
2)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal erred in not considering that the
business of the assessee consisting of promoting companies
and loss arising from investment in such promoted
companies would constitute business loss and capital loss?
Page 2/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
3)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal erred in not following the ratio of the
decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assesse's own case for
the earlier years where realisation from investments in
promoted companies where it was held to be business
income?”
3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for the
appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing
Counsel for the respondent/Revenue.
4.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.
Page 3/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
5.We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/
assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form – 3 on
11.12.2020 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.]
Index : Yes/No 26.02.2021
Internet : Yes
va
To
1) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench
2)The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Company Circle – III (2),
Chennai – 600 034,
presently the Income Tax Officer,
Non-Corporate Ward – 19(4),
Chennai – 600 034.
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
Page 4/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
and
T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.
va
Tax Case Appeal No.96 of 2017
26.02.2021
Page 5/5
http://www.judis.nic.in
