Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. M/s. Suguna Dairy Products India

PDF · subscribers
TCA/300/2022HC Madras15 October 2024Bench: Honourable Mr Justice R. SURESH KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was based on the submission by the Revenue that the matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. Consequently, the substantial questions of law arising in the appeal were kept open to be decided at a later point of time. No order was made as to costs. The judgment does not record any finding on the merits of the two substantial questions of law framed at the time of admission of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore (Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai dated 05.05.2022. The ITAT's order was passed in MP.No.70/CHNY/2019 in W.T.A.No.08/CHNY/2019. The assessee is M/s. Suguna Dairy Products India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly Suguna Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd.). The High Court admitted the appeal on 27.10.2022, framing two substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Revenue submitted that the matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024.

What were the issues?

The High Court had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in presuming the value of an asset as Rs. NIL as quoted by the assessee, since the valuation report from the Director of Valuation Officer (DVO) was not available on the date of pronouncement of the order by the ITAT? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in ignoring its earlier finding that the land in question is an “asset” within the meaning of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 2(ea)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.No.300 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2024 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN T.C.A.No.300 of 2022 Commissioner of Wealth Tax Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore. .. Appellant Vs. M/s.Suguna Dairy Products India Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Suguna Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd.) 5th Floor, Jaya Enclave, 1057 Avinashi Road, Coimbatore 641 018 PAN: AAKCS 0734 Q .. Respondent Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “B” Bench, Chennai dated 05.05.2022 passed in MP.No.70/CHNY/2019 in W.T.A.No.08/CHNY/2019. For the Appellant : Mr.Karthik Ranganathan Senior Standing Counsel For the Respondent : Mr.P.J.Rishikesh JUDGMENT (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.) The present tax case appeal was admitted on 27.10.2022 by this Court on the following substantial questions of law:- Page 1 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.300 of 2022 "1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in presuming the value of asset as Rs.NIL as quoted by the assessee since the valuation report from the DVO was not available on the date of pronouncement of the order by the ITAT? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITAT was right in ignoring its earlier finding that the land in question is an “asset” within the meaning of the Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957?" 2. It is submitted by the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant Revenue that this matter is covered under the Low Tax Effect as per the recent Circular dated 17.09.2024, in Circular No.9/2024. 3. Hence, this appeal stands dismissed, as covered under the low tax effect and the substantial questions of law arising in this appeal are kept open to be decided at the later point of time. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J) 15.10.2024 Neutral Citation:Yes/No drm Page 2 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis T.C.A.No.300 of 2022 R. SURESH KUMAR, J. AND C. SARAVANAN

, J.

(drm) T.C.A.No.300 of 2022 15.10.2024 Page 3 of 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,570 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →