THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. M/S.COROMANDEL CABLES PVT LTD

Whether reasoning and finding of the Tribunal is proper by holding that no transfer took place in the previous year relevant to the asst. year 2006-07 when all the conditions stipulated u/s.53A on the T.P. Act were satisfied and the Transferee had also taken possession of the property and the Transferee was ready and willing to perform the contract was also satisfied? 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.364, 377, 391, 392, 395, 397 and 413 of 2021 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment for the assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 as substantive when the substantive assessment for the assessment of capital gains on transfer of land was made for the assessment year 2006-07 when possession was given? 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in remitting the claim of Rs.68,99,590/- as the cost of improvement for the asst. year 2007-08 to the file of Assessing Officer without recording any reasons to differ from the findings given by the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) especially all the material was available before it? 5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to compute the short term capital gains and the sale value of the building for the asst. year 2008-09 to 2011-12 when the receipt of such building through joint development agreement was not brought to tax in the asst. year 2006-07 and the said direction of the Tribunal is perverse? 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.364, 377, 391, 392, 395, 397 and 413 of 2021 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct and justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) especially when the quantum assessment had not attained finality as appeals are pending? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in setting aside the levy of penalty when the act of concealment of income had been substantiated beyond doubt especially in a situation where the return of income was not filed within the due date, original JDA was found during survey operation and return was filed in response to Sec.148 notice issued?”'

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 appeals 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 are less than the threshold limit. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.364, 377, 391, 392, 395, 397 and 413 of 2021 3. 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.] 18.07.2022 msr

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Madras “C” Bench, Chennai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis TCA.Nos.364, 377, 391, 392, 395, 397 and 413 of 2021 R. MAHADEVAN, J. and MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J. msr T.C.A.Nos.364, 377, 391, 392, 395, 397 and 413 of 2021 18.07.2022 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis