Madras High Court
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Keezhayur Sowrirajan Sreenivasan on 19 October, 2024
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar, C.Saravanan
T.C.A.No.200 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.10.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Tax Case Appeal No.200 of 2024
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I
Chennai. .... Appellant
Vs.
Keezhayur Sowrirajan Sreenivasan .... Respondent
-----
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961
against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench Chennai,
dated 15.06.2022 made in I.T.A.No.2369/Chny/2019.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel
For Respondent : Mr.K.Senguttuvan
-----
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This Tax Case Appeal has been filed by the Revenue calling in question
the correctness of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Chennai by raising the following substantial questions of law:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
"(i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum
of Rs.484,75,000/- received by the Assessee from Landmark
Construction is liable to be taxed as long term capital gains
overlooking the fact that there was no transfer of capital
assets in the first instance?
(ii) Whether compensation received by the Assessee from
Landmark Construction is to be taxed as a long term capital
gains or income from other sources?
(iii) Whether the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is
proper in relying on an unregistered MoU which is compulsorily
registerable as per provisions of Section 17(1)(b) with effect
from 24.09.2001 by the Registration Act, 1908 and also
Section 49(c) of the Registration Act which clearly states that
unregistered documents cannot be taken as evidence?
2. It is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the
appellant Revenue that in the instant case, as per the CBDT's Circular No.9 of
2024 dated 17.09.2024 the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit
imposed and therefore, the appeal can be disposed of, keeping the substantial
questions of law raised in this appeal open for adjudication at a later point of
time.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that to an e-
mail communication dated 04.10.2024 requesting instructions as to whether
this case is covered under low tax effect, the reply given by the Revenue is in
the affirmative. Therefore, based on such instructions from the Revenue, the
learned Standing Counsel submits that this appeal can be disposed of.
4. Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned Standing
Counsel for the appellant Revenue, this Tax Case Appeal is dismissed for low
tax effect, keeping open the substantial questions of law for adjudication at
appropriate stage. No costs.
(R.S.K.,J.) (C.S.N.,J.)
19.10.2024
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
KST
To
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
'D' Bench, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C.SARAVANAN, J.
KST
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
