Dismissed

M/S. Sri Devi Karumari & Co. v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Madras HC4 Feb 2021TC/1231/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court heard an appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act regarding undisclosed income. The Court dismissed the tax appeal as withdrawn by the appellant due to the provisions of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. No lexicographical analysis of the substantive law was undertaken.

What did the court decide?

The Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.

M/S. Sri Devi Karumari & Co. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of — Income Tax | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.02.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008
M/s. Sri Devi Karumari Spinners (P) Ltd.,
# 267 - F, Kamarajanar Road,
Attur - 636 102,
Salem District. ... Appellant
v.
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Special Investigation Circle,
Salem - 636 007. ... Respondent

¶7

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 filed against I.T.(SS)A. No.88/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1998 in the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai dated 30.11.2005 in appeals filed by the Department in I.T.(SS)A Nos. 82 to 84 & 86 to

¶8

Page 1/6

¶9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶10

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶11

89/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1998 and in Cross Objections filed by the Assessees in C.O. Nos. 66, 68. to 73/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1988..

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar Senior Standing Counsel Asst. by Ms. K.g. Usha Rani J U D G M E N T (Judgment was Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the I.T.(SS)A. No.88/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1998 in the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” Bench, Chennai dated 30.11.2005 in appeals filed by the Department in I.T.(SS)A Nos. 82 to 84 & 86 to 89/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1998 and in the Cross Objections filed by the Assessees in C.O. Nos. 66, 68. to 73/Mds/2001 for the Block Assessment Year 01.04.1988 to 30.07.1988..

¶13

Page 2/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶15

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶16

The appeal was admitted on 18.08.2008 on the following Substantial Question of Law:

¶17

“ Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that shares subscribed by the shareholders in the assessee company should be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?”

¶18

.3. We have heard Mr. M.P. Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent.

¶19

It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial

¶20

Question of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the

¶21

Page 3/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶23

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶24

President on 17^th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17^th March 2020.

¶25

We are informed by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on
22.01.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of
this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
[ M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.]
04.02.2021
2/5
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
Rj

¶26

Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶27

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶28

¶29

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “C” Bench .

¶30

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Investigation Circle, Salem - 636 007.

¶31

Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶32

Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶33

M. DURAISWAMY, J.

¶34

and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶35

Rj
Tax Case Appeal No.1231 of 2008

¶36

04.02.2021

¶37

2/5

¶38

Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

M/S. Sri Devi Karumari & Co. v. the Deputy Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sri Devi Karumari & Co. v. the Deputy Commissioner of

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

The Commissioner of Income Vs Celebrity Fashions Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Elgi Equipments

The Commissioner of Income- Vs Tuticorin Port Trust

Durai Sathymurthy Vs the Dy Commissioner of Income

Shri.N.Rajasekaran Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S.Avm Film Studios Vs Income Tax Officer