THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. SHRI D. GNANASEKARAN
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The Revenue brought to the court's notice Circular No. 17/2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), which stipulates that appeals shall not be filed or pursued by the Department before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The Revenue submitted that the tax effect in these appeals was less than the threshold limit. Consequently, the High Court, in light of the CBDT circular and the submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit, dismissed the present appeals as withdrawn. The substantial questions of law were kept open for determination in appropriate cases. No costs were awarded.
What were the facts?
These three tax case appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai (Revenue) against the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 25.02.2014 and 27.05.2014. The appeals pertained to assessment years 2009-10, 2007-08, and 2008-09, concerning the respondent, D. Gnanasekaran. The appeals challenged the ITAT's decision to treat gains from the sale of land as long-term capital gains, allow exemption under Section 54F, and not classify the gains as business income. The High Court admitted these appeals on substantial questions of law.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating the gains arising from the sale of land as long-term capital gains and also in allowing the exemption claimed under Section 54F and not as 'business income'? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 54F and classification of income). 2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact that the appellant had purchased the property specifically for the purpose of commercial exploitation and as his intention was to plotting and selling them, and therefore the entire transaction has to be construed as an adventure in the nature of trade and therefore taxable as business income? (Question of law and fact, concerning the nature of transaction and classification as business income). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the gains from the sale of land should be treated as business income, not long-term capital gains, and that the exemption under Section 54F should not be allowed. The Revenue relied on the cases of S. Ramaiah reported in 42 ITR 179 and Smt. Indira Mani Bai Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 200 ITR 594, contending that the intention was commercial exploitation and plotting/selling the land, making it an adventure in the nature of trade.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.08.2022 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ... Appellant in all TCAs Versus D.Gnanasekaran No.2, Parameswari Nagar, 2nd Main Road, Chennai - 600 020
... Respondent in all TCAs Prayer in T.C.A.No.215 of 2015: Appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras “B” Bench, dated 25.02.2014 passed in I.T.A.No.1380/MDS/2013. Prayer in T.C.A.Nos.225 & 226 of 2015: Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “D” Bench, dated 27.05.2014 in I.T.A.Nos. 543/Mds/2014 and 544/Mds/2014. For Appellant in all TCAs' : Mr.T.Ravikumar
Senior Standing Counsel For Respondent in all TCAs' : Mr.N.Devanathann Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.MAHADEVAN, J.) These tax case appeals have been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, dated 25.02.2014 and 27.05.2014, relating to the assessment years 2009-10, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively. 2. By order dated 06.07.2015, this court admitted the aforesaid tax case appeals on the following substantial questions of law: T.C.A.No.215 of 2015:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating the gains arising from sale of land as long term capital gains and also in allowing the exemption claimed under Section 54F and not as 'business income'? T.C.A.Nos.225 & 226 of 2015 :- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in treating the gains arising Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 from sale of land as long term capital gains and also in allowing the exemption claimed under Section 54F and not as 'business income'? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in ignoring the fact that the appellant had purchased the property specifically for the purpose of commercial exploitation and as his intention was to plotting and selling them and therefore the entire transaction has to be construed as adventure in the nature of trade and therefore taxable as business income as held in the case of S.Ramaiaha reported in 42 ITR 179 and Smt.Indira Mani Bai Vs. Addl. CIT reported in 200 ITR 594?" 3.When the matters were taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue brought to the notice of this court the Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes, wherein, it is stipulated that appeal 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). It is also submitted that the tax effect in these appeals is less than the threshold limit. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeals, wherein, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed, are dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases. No costs. (R.M.D., J.) (M.S.Q., J.) 24.08.2022
Internet : Yes
Index : Yes / No r n s Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'D' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VI, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Chennai - 34. 3.The Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Company Circle I (2), Chennai -34. Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. r n s T.C.A.Nos.215, 225 and 226 of 2015 24.08.2022 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
More judgments on Section 54F
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
- Nand Kishore Agarwal, Hyderabad vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Hyderabad.ITA 2101/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Jaipal Jona, Hyderabad vs DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), HyderabadITA 1889/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Renu Arun Talwar, Mumbai vs Circle 17(1), MumbaiITA 204/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026