SHRI KUMMATHI RAMESWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-9

PDF · subscribers
TCA/420/2017HC Madras26 March 2021Bench: Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DURAISWAMY5 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the substantial questions of law framed for consideration. This was due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had opted for this scheme, had been issued Form-3 on 04.03.2021, and sought permission to withdraw the appeals. In view of this submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeals as withdrawn. No costs were awarded. The principle that can be cited from this judgment is that appeals admitted on substantial questions of law can be dismissed as withdrawn if the parties opt for a tax dispute resolution scheme like the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, and the assessee seeks withdrawal.

What were the facts?

These appeals were filed by the Revenue against a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chennai, concerning Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. The assessee is Shri Ummathi Rameswar Reddy. The appeals were admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the taxability of stock appreciation rights (SARs) received by an employee of an Indian subsidiary from a foreign holding company. The core dispute revolved around whether SARs constitute salary income or a capital receipt, and if a capital asset, whether gains are taxable without a cost of acquisition. The High Court was informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was issued Form-3, leading to the withdrawal of the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether stock appreciation rights (SARs) received by an employee of an Indian subsidiary from a foreign holding company are taxable under the head 'salaries' (Section 15 of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? 2. Whether SARs received by the assessee constitute a capital receipt and are therefore not taxable? 3. Whether SARs received by the appellant are a capital asset, and if so, whether the gain can be taxed in the absence of a cost of acquisition? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee, through their counsel, informed the Court that they had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and had been issued Form-3. Consequently, they sought permission to withdraw the appeals. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the substantial questions of law. The appeals were filed by the Revenue, but their arguments on the merits of the case are not detailed as the appeals were withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 15,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.03.2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 Shri ummathi Rameswar Reddy, Flat 6, Viswaretha Apartments, Old No.28, New No.16, 7th Cross street, Shastri Nagar,Adyar, Chennai – 20. ... Appellant in both TCAs v. The Commissioner of Income Tax -9, Chennai. ... Respondent in both TCA Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench, dated 05.05.2016 in ITA.Nos.335 & 209/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. For Appellant : Mr. N.V. Balaji Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017

(in both TCAs)

For Respondent : MR. T. Ravikumar,

(in both TCAs) Senior Standing Counsel COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by M. DURAISWAMY, J.) These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directed against the common order dated 05.05.2016 made in ITA.Nos.335 & 209/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. 2.The appeals were admitted on 15.09.2009 on the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the stock appreciation rights received by an employee of a subsidiary company incorporated in India from a foreign holding company can be taxable under the head “salaries”? Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 (ii) Whether the stock appreciation rights received by the assessee is a capital receipt and hence not taxable? (iii) Whether the stock appreciation rights received by the appellant is a capital asset and if so whether the gain can at all be taxed in the absence of cost of acquisition ?” .3. We have heard Mr. N.V. Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant and MR. T. Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration on account of certain subsequent developments. The Government of India enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of the Parliament received the assent of the President on 17th March 2020 and published in the Gazette of India on Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 17th March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form – 3 on 04.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] 26.03.2021

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax -9, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench. M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 Rj

T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 26.03.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 15

All 120 judgments and leading authorities on Section 15 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →