COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V vs. JALPA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/221/2010HC GujaratGJHC24046026201014 December 2021Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the communication from the assessee's counsel that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had made tax payments. Based on this, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, requested the withdrawal of the Tax Appeal. The Court heard both the learned senior advocate for the appellant (Revenue) and the learned advocate for the respondent (Assessee). Considering the request for withdrawal, the Tax Appeal was permitted to be withdrawn. The Court explicitly stated that the questions of law were kept open to be adjudicated in an appropriate matter at a future date. Therefore, no decision was made on the merits of the substantial questions of law.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-V against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is Jalpa Specific Family Trust. The appeal was admitted for consideration of substantial questions of law on May 9, 2011. A communication dated December 8, 2021, from the assessee's counsel indicated that the assessee had availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020, by filing applications and making tax payments. Consequently, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, requested the withdrawal of the Tax Appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee earned long-term capital gains on the sale of warrants and not short-term capital gains on the sale of shares? (This question pertains to the classification of capital gains and the nature of the asset sold). 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the transaction date was April 1, 2000, and not December 23, 2000, is perverse as it does not take into consideration the evidence found during the search? (This question relates to the factual determination of the transaction date and its impact on the classification of capital gains, and whether the ITAT's finding was based on evidence). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment, beyond the request for withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/221/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 221 of 2010 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V Versus JALPA SPECIFIC FAMILY TRUST ========================================================== Appearance: M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR BANDISH SOPARKAR WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 14/12/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This appeal had been admitted for consideration of following

substantial questions of law on 09.05.2011: “Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the assessee earned long term capital gains on sale of warrants and not short term capital gains on sale of shares?” “Whether the Appellate Tribunal’s finding that the transaction date was 01/04/2000 and not 23/12/2000, is perverse as it does not take into consideration the evidence found during the search?” 2. The communication dated 08.12.2021 from the office of the learned senior advocate, Mr.Bhatt indicates that the assessee has availed the benefit under the Direct Tax Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/221/2010 ORDER DATED: 14/12/2021 Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020 by filing the application under Form-3 and Form-4 which depict the payment of taxes. Hence, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad has requested for withdrawal of the Tax Appeal. 3. We have heard the learned senior advocate, Mr.Bhatt and learned advocate, Mr.Bandish Soparkar. 4. Considering the request of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad, the Tax Appeal is permitted to be withdrawn without entering into the question of law which are kept open to be adjudicated in appropriate matter at a future date. 5. Present Tax Appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →