Dismissed

The Commissioner of v. Shri Suresh Krishna

Madras HC1 Nov 2018TC/1914/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this tax appeal, the High Court, Madras Bench dismissed the Revenue's challenge to the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that since the Supreme Court had already answered the substantial questions framed in favour of the assessee, the present appeal was untenable and was accordingly dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Tax Case Appeal was dismissed; Substantial Questions of Law were answered in favour of the appellant/assessee.

The Commissioner of Vs Shri Suresh Krishna — Income Tax | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2018

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN

¶7

Tax Case Appeal No.1914 of 2008
The Commissioner of Income Tax,
Chennai.
.... Appellant
-vs-
Shri Suresh Krishna,
Old No. 79, New No. 44,
Poes Garden,
Chennai – 600 086.
...Respondent

¶8

This Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 11.04.2008 in ITA No.638/Mds/2007, for the
Assessment year 2000-01.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.N.V.Balaji

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

JUDGMENT

¶12

[Judgement of the Court was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam, J.]

¶13

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'C' Bench, dated 11.04.2008 in ITA No.638/Mds/2007, for the Assessment year 2000-01.

¶14

Revenue and Mr.N.V.Balaji, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

¶15

3.This Appeal has been admitted on 02.12.2008, on the following Substantial Questions of Law:

¶16

"(i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the dividend received from the units cannot be reduced from the cost of acquisition of the shares for computing short term capital gains from the sale of the units post dividend?

¶17

clarificatory in nature and hence retrospective in operation?”

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

4.The above referred Substantial Questions of Law were

¶21

considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai Vs. Walfort Share & Stock Brokers (P) Ltd., [(2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) dated 06.07.2010 and decided in favour of the assessee.

¶22

5.The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute the

¶23

fact that the Substantial Questions of Law, framed for consideration, have been answered in favour of the assessee by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶24

6.In the light of the same, this Tax Case Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Substantial Questions of Law, framed for consideration, are answered in favour of the appellant/assessee. No costs.

¶25

msk/mrm

¶26

[T.S.S., J.] & [V.B.S., J.] 01.11.2018

¶27

¶28

1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras 'B' Bench.

¶29

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶30

¶31

T.S.Sivagnanam, J. and V.Bhavani Subbaroyan, J.

¶32

msk/mrm

¶33

T.C.A.No.1914 of 2008
01.11.2018

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Commissioner of v. Shri Suresh Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of v. Shri Suresh Krishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.AA713 Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Tractors and Farm Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S.Calibre Financial Vs the Income Tax Officer

Commissioner Vs M/s Tansi Watch Assembly Unit

The Kodumudi Growers Vs the Income Tax Officer

Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Selvaraj