Dismissed

Commissioner of Income Tax 7, v. Geetha Venugopal

Madras HC12 Mar 2020TCA/42/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Revenue's Tax Case Appeal against a tax effect of less than the statutory limit, citing updated CBDT guidelines. The court dismissed the appeal as not pressed while keeping the substantial questions of law regarding agricultural land exemption open for determination in an appropriate case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit; questions of law kept open for appropriate case.

Commissioner of Income Tax 7, Vs Geetha Venugopal — Income Tax | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.03.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR

¶5

Tax Case (Appeal) No.42 of 2016

¶6

The Commissioner of Income Tax 7 Chennai.

¶7

...Appellant/Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Geetha Venugopal ...Respondent/Respondent

¶10

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench, Chennai dated 19.06.2015 in ITA.636/Mds/2013 for Assessment year 2009 - 10 against the order of the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - IX, Chennai - 84 dated 28/12/2012 in ITA No.285/11 - 12 for the assessment year 2009-10 against the order of the Income Tax Officer, Business ward(1), Tambaram, Chennai dated 30/12/2011 in PAN/GIR NO. AQEPG651H for the assessment year 2009 - 10.

¶11

For Appellant : Mr.Karthik Renganathan, Sr.Standing Counsel Assisted by Mr.V.Rajesh, Jr.Standing Counsel

¶12

For Respondent : No appearance

¶13

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J)

¶14

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, 'B' Bench, Chennai, by raising the following substantial questions of law:

¶15

"1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the subject land is an agricultural land and eligible for exemption under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act without verifying as to

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶17

whether the compensation for the land acquired was paid on square feet basis treating it as a nonagricultural land or on per cent basis treating it as an agricultural land?

¶18

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying upon the certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer, which cannot supersede the classification made by Tamil Nadu Government in its official website?

¶19

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in not following the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Smt.Sarifabibi (204 ITR 631) where it was held that the land being mentioned as agricultural land in the revenue records, is not conclusive evidence to prove its character? And

¶20

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in relying upon the population of Kollapakkam Village to hold that the land is an agricultural land and failed to follow the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in the case of G.M.Omer Khan (196 ITR 269) wherein it was held that the population of the entire municipality has to be considered and not that of a particular area / village for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act?”

¶21

When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel brought to our notice the Circular instruction issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes vide Circular No.17/2019 dated 8th August 2019, wherein, it is stipulated that appeals 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).

¶22

In the instant case, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as not pressed, keeping open the

¶23

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶24

substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case.

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶29

KST

¶30

¶31

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal 'B' Bench,Chennai.

¶32

The Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals) - IX, Chennai - 34.

¶33

The Income Tax Officer, Bussiness ward (1), Tambaram.

¶34

T.C.(A) No.42 of 2016

¶35

VBA(CO) KKV/08/07/2020

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Commissioner of Income Tax 7, v. Geetha Venugopal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Income Tax 7, v. Geetha Venugopal

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

K.Dharmaraj Vs Sir M.Ct.Muthuaiah Chettiar

M/S.Jeppiar Furnace and Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Remibai Jeppiar

Audco India Ltd., Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl.Vijay Leaters and Products Vs the Union of India, Rep by the

Nandhini Alagar Vs Sethuraman Srinivasan

M/S Cnn Educational Trust Vs the Income Tax Officer