Dismissed

The Commissioner of v. Smt.v.L.Indira Dutt

Madras HC30 Oct 2018TC/1078/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a special leave application under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal because the amount involved was below the monetary limit specified in Circular No. 3/2018 issued by the CBDT. Consequently, the substantial questions of law framed were left open.

What did the court decide?

Tax case appeal dismissed; substantial questions of law left open. No costs awarded.

The Commissioner of Vs Smt.v.L.Indira Dutt — Income Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 30.10.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

and

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶8

T.C.(A).No.1078 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. .. Appellant

¶9

Vs Smt.V.L.Indira Dutt, 2, Dr.PV Cherian Cresent, Egmore, Chennai – 8. .. Respondent

¶10

Prayer : Tax Case (Appeal) is filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench, dated 14.12.2007, passed in ITA No.2836/MDS/2004, Assessment year 1997-98.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan For Respondent : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. )

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

¶15

The Revenue preferred this appeal challenging the order passed

¶16

by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.2836/Mds/2004, dated

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

14.12.2007, for the assessment year 1997-98.

¶20

The above appeal has been admitted on 05.08.2008 on the

¶21

following substantial questions of law :

¶22

“i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission granted to the assessee vide the Annual General Body meeting resolution dated 26.07.1996 and credited by her to books of account during the financial year was not assessable in this assessment year?

¶23

ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in applying the section 47(vi)(d) retrospectively on the ground that insertion of the section is clarificatory in nature and thereby holding that no capital gains would arise by scheme of demerger where the shares were issued to the resulting company as a consideration for the transfer?”

¶24

It may not be necessary for us to answer the above substantial

¶25

questions of law, as the monetary limit in this appeal is lesser than the amount fixed by the circular instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

¶26

This Court had an occasion to consider the effect of those circulars in TCA.No.395 of 2018 dated 24.7.2018, the relevant portions of which are as

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

¶29

follows :

¶30

“4. Further, it is relevant to note that by Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.7.2018, monetary limit has further been increased and appeals be maintainable before the High Courts. It has been increased to Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, viewed from any angle, this appeal could not have been filed.

¶31

5. Thus, by applying the above Circular issued by the CBDT, this appeal ought not to have been filed by the Revenue and hence, for that reason, this tax case appeal is dismissed and the substantial questions of law, framed for consideration, are left open.”

¶32

In the light of the above, the above appeal is dismissed. No costs. The substantial questions of law are left open for consideration.

¶33

30.10.2018

¶34

rkm Index:yes/no

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.

¶38

rkm
To
Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai
T.C.(A).No.1078 of
2008
30.10.2018

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Commissioner of v. Smt.v.L.Indira Dutt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of v. Smt.v.L.Indira Dutt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Somayalulu

M/S Indo Japan Vs the Asst Commissioner

Commissioner of Income Vs M/S R.K. Swamy Bbdo

M/S Scm Garments Pvt. Ltd, Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Raja Metals Corporation Vs the Special Director

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri S.Ramabadran