COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI.A.V.GOPALAKRISHNAN

Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 28.01.2022 CORAM : THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai.

...Appellant -vs- Shri A.V.Gopalakrishnan, 83 (Old No.48), Pudupet Street, Alandur, Chennai - 600 016, PAN:APXPG8729G

...Respondent Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai “A” Bench, in I.T.A.No.1494/Mds/2013. For Appellant : Mrs.R.Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. MAHADEVAN, J.) This tax case appeal has been filed by the appellant / Revenue, challenging the order dated 15.05.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Chennai, in I.T.A.No.1494/Mds/2013, relating to the assessment year 2009-10, by raising the following substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Capital Gain is to be assessed in the assessment year 2007-08 and not in the sssessment year 2009-10? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding the date of conclusion of agreement for joint development of land constitutes the date of transfer? (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessees are eligible for exemption under Section 54F even though multiple flats were 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 allotted to them in lieu of cost of 60% of the land allotted to the builder? (v) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in treating the investment in multiple residential units located at different floors, different areas and different buildings and in different wings of same building as being eligible for deduction under section 54F though as per provision, the investment in a residential unit alone is eligible for exemption? 2.When the matter was 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 this appeal is less than the threshold limit. 3.In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant / Revenue, the present appeal, wherein, the tax effect is said to 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 be less than the monetary limit imposed, is dismissed as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in an appropriate case. No costs. [R.M.D,J.] [M.S.Q, J.] 28.01.2022

Internet : Yes

Index : Yes / No av To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 R. MAHADEVAN, J. AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. av Tax Case Appeal No.34 of 2022 28.01.2022 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis