Madras High Court
M/S. Prime Urban Development ... vs The Income Tax Officer on 28 March, 2022
TCA .No. 47 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.03.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
T.C.A. No. 47 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
M/s. Prime Urban Development India Limited,
110, Avinashi Road,
Gandhi Nagar Post,
Tirupur - 641 603. ... Appellant
Versus
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward - I(4), Tirupur ... Respondent
Prayer: Appeal preferred under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Chennai,
dated 14.12.2012 passed in I.T.A.No.1795(mds)/2012.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Muthukumar
For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan
Senior Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1/5
TCA .No. 47 of 2013
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.)
This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / assessee,
challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench,
Chennai, dated 14.12.2012 passed in I.T.A.No.1795/Mds/2012, relating to the
assessment year 2009 - 10.
2.By order dated 25.02.2013, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case
appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
"1.Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is
right in holding that there was a transfer of FSI
and development rights being Rs.30.50 crores
within the meaning of clause (47) of Section 2 of
the Income Tax Act, 1961?
2. Whether in the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that
the doctrine of part performance as envisaged in
Section 2(47)(v) could be attributed to the
transaction entered into, when the appellant was
constrained by law from handing over possession
to the buyer?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 2/5
TCA .No. 47 of 2013
3.Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in
not addressing all the grounds in the order of the
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) more
particularly in the grounds raised in 5(a) and
5(b)?
4.Whether in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the
sale of FSI and development rights treated as
business is to be changed as capital gains as the
transaction is a colourable device despite the fact
that there was no transfer of land as envisaged by
the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882.
5. Whether having regard to the powers and
jurisdiction of the commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) under Section 251 of the Income Tax
Act, 1961, it is open to him to treat the sum of
Rs.30.50 crores as capital gains when it was
treated by the appellant and the Assessing Officer
as income from business?
6.Whether on the facts and circumstances
of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
was correct in law in sustaining the addition of
interest under Section 234B of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 since a charge was not created by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Assessing Officer as part of the order?"
Page 3/5
TCA .No. 47 of 2013
3.When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel
appearing for both sides submitted that subsequent to the order passed by the
Tribunal, which is impugned herein, a miscellaneous petition in
M.P.No.108/Mds/2013 was filed by the assessee stating that the Tribunal has
omitted to consider ground Nos.3(i) & (j) relating to the addition of Rs.18
crores; after hearing the parties, the Tribunal by order dated 17.10.2014
recalled its order dated 14.12.2012 only to the limited extent of disposing the
ground No.3(i) and dismissing the ground No.3(j) raised by the assessee; and
aggrieved against the said order dated 17.10.2014, the assessee preferred an
appeal in TCA.No.117 of 2015 before this Court. Thus, according to the
learned counsel, nothing survives for adjudication herein.
4.In view of the above, this tax case appeal is dismissed as having
become infructuous. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
(R.M.D., J.) (J.S.N.P., J.)
28.03.2022
dhk
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes/No
To
1.The Income Tax Officer, Ward - I(4), Tirupur
2.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Chennai
3.The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) -II, Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 4/5
TCA .No. 47 of 2013
R. MAHADEVAN, J.
and
J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
msr
T.C.A No. 47 of 2013
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 5/5
