Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 13881 Mad
Judgement Date : 3 August, 2022
T.C.A.No.376 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 03.08.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.376 of 2021
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
Business Circle-III
Chennai 600 034 .. Appellant
Vs.
P.Amalanathan
No.19, V Cross Street
United India Colony
Kodambakkam
Chennai 600 024
PAN : AAIPA2933Q .. Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2317/Mds/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan
Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
T.C.A.No.376 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant/Revenue, calling in
question the correctness of the order dated 06.02.2017 passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.2317/Mds/2015,
relating to the assessment year 2005-06.
2. By order dated 22.07.2021, this Court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law :
“1. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right and justified in holding that the assessee has not made any fresh claim of exemption ?
2. Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Geotze Indi P Limited Vs CIT (SC) [(2006) 284 ITR 323] ?
3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in holding that the assessee has rightly claimed deduction u/s.54 of the Income Tax Act ?
4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in allowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54 when the property is not purchased and owned by the assessee at any point of time ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.376 of 2021
5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right and justified in allowing assessee's claim of deduction u/s.54 when the Deed of Mortgage by conditional sale is not an agreement to purchase the property but advancement of loan on interest and in case of default in payment of loan/interest the owner ceases right on it ?”
3. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
for the appellant/Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular
No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019, issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes,
wherein, it is stipulated that appeal shall not be filed/pursued by the Department
before the High Court in cases where the tax effect does not exceed
Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore). It is also submitted that the tax effect in
this appeal is less than the threshold limit.
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant/Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to
be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping
open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.
No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.]
gya 03.08.2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
T.C.A.No.376 of 2021
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
gya
To
1.The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Business Circle-III Chennai 600 034
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai
3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 14 Chennai Tax Case Appeal No.376 of 2021
03.08.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!