Madras High Court
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Smt. Vijaya Srinivasan on 16 August, 2022
TCA.Nos.195 & 196 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.08.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
T.C.A.Nos. 195 & 196 of 2014
Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Chennai .. Appellant in both TCAs
Versus
Smt. Vijaya Srinivasan
Flat No.33/34, Rishikesh Apartments,
38, G.N.Chetty Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017 .. Respondent in both TCAs
Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,
1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A”
Bench, dated 17.07.2013 passed in MP.Nos.101 & 102/Mds/2013 in
ITA.Nos.1846 & 1847/Mds/2012 for the respective assessment years 2005-06
& and 2008-09.
For Appellant : Mr. T. Ravi Kumar,
in both TCAs Standing counsel
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kumar
in both TCAs (undertook to file vakalat)
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos.195 & 196 of 2014
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
These Tax Case Appeals have been filed by the appellant / revenue,
questioning the correctness of the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by the
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench, in MP.Nos.101 &
102/Mds/2013 in ITA.Nos.1846 & 1847/Mds/2012 for the respective
assessment years 2005-06 & and 2008-09.
2. On 07.04.2014, these tax case appeals were admitted on the following
substantial questions of law.
TCA.Nos.195 and 196 of 2014:
' 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal was right in holding that the share held by the
assessee for a longer period is to be treated as investment
resulting in long term capital gains and shares held for
shorter duration was to be considered as income from
business?
2. Whether the Tribunal was right in amending the
order passed in ITA 1846 and 1847 which amounted to
review of the original order passed in MP.Nos.101 and
2/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos.195 & 196 of 2014
102/Mds/2013 especially when the Tribunal did not have
any power to review?
3. Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse
especially when it had held the shares for a period of 30
days were to be treated as short term and for a period of
more then 30 days were to be treated as long term
investment and the same cannot be the yardstick to
determine the taxability of income under the head
business?'
4. Whether the computation of income on profit on
sale shares constitute long term capital gains or business
income?'
3. When the matters were 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 appeals 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
these appeals are less than the threshold limit.
3/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
TCA.Nos.195 & 196 of 2014
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
msr
4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said
to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn,
keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate
cases. No costs.
[R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q., J.]
16.08.2022
msr
Index : Yes / No
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle – II, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI
Chennai-34
3. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “A” Bench,
Chennai.
4. Commissioner of Income-Tax,
Chennai.
T.C.A.Nos. 195 & 196 of 2014
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
