Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri A.V.Gopalakrishnan on 28 January, 2022
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.01.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
...Appellant
-vs-
Shri A.V.Gopalakrishnan,
83 (Old No.48), Pudupet Street,
Alandur, Chennai - 600 016,
PAN:APXPG8729G
...Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Chennai “A” Bench, in I.T.A.No.1494/Mds/2013.
For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha,
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue,
challenging the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1494/Mds/2013, relating to the
assessment year 2009-10, by raising the following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Capital Gain is to be
assessed in the assessment year 2007-08 and not in the
sssessment year 2009-10?
(ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was correct in holding the date of conclusion of
agreement for joint development of land constitutes the date of
transfer?
(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal is right in holding that the assessees are eligible for
exemption under Section 54F even though multiple flats were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
allotted to them in lieu of cost of 60% of the land allotted to the
builder?
(v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the
Tribunal was correct in treating the investment in multiple
residential units located at different floors, different areas and
different buildings and in different wings of same building as
being eligible for deduction under section 54F though as per
provision, the investment in a residential unit alone is eligible for
exemption?
2.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.
3.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
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.]
28.01.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No
av
To
1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai 'A' Bench.
2. The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J.
av
Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022
28.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
