SHRI.J.BALAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER O
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that the assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. Consequently, the Court directed the Competent Authority to process the application in accordance with the Act and pass appropriate orders. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on the declaration was not in their favour. In such an event, the Registry was instructed to entertain the restoration petition without insisting on a delay condonation application. The substantial question of law was expressly left undecided. The appeal was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Shri J. Balaji, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The appeal challenged an order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai ('the Tribunal'), in relation to the assessment year 2007-08. The core dispute revolved around whether additional compensation received on behalf of Ms. Yasodha and Ms. Neena, pursuant to a tripartite agreement, should be treated as income from other sources in the hands of the appellant. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was filed and subsequently, the assessee filed a declaration under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 30.1.2021.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the additional compensation received on behalf of Ms. Yasodha and Ms. Neena, pursuant to a tripartite agreement, is to be treated as income from other sources in the hands of the Appellant? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The assessee's counsel submitted that the assessee had filed a declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 30.1.2021 and was awaiting orders. No specific arguments were recorded on the merits of the substantial question of law. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's counsel accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded on the merits of the substantial question of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
TCA.No.447 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.9.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Tax Case Appeal No.447 of 2021 Shri J.Balaji ...Appellant Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle X, Chennai ...Respondent APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order dated 13.11.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai made in CO.119/Mds/2011 in I.T.A.No. 1198/Mds/2011 for the assessment year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.R.Sivaraman For Respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, SSC assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, JSC Judgment was delivered by
T.S.SIVAGNANAM
This appeal has been filed by the assessee under Section 260A of 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.447 of 2021 the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) challenging the order dated 13.11.2017 made in CO.119/Mds/2011 in I.T.A.No.1198/Mds/ 2011 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, 'C' Bench ('the Tribunal' for brevity) for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. The assessee has filed this appeal by raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the additional compensation (received by BDCL and shared with Ms.Yasodha and Ms.Neena on account of tripartite agreement) received on behalf of Ms.Yasodha and Ms.Neena is to be treated as income from other sources in the hands of Appellant?” 3. We have heard Mr.R.Sivaraman, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.V.Pushpa, learned Junior Standing Counsel accepting notice for the respondent/Revenue. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the assessee submits that 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.447 of 2021 the assessee already filed the declaration/undertaking under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme on 30.1.2021 and is awaiting orders to be passed in Form No.3. 5. In the light of the subsequent event, the Competent Authority shall process the application/declaration in accordance with the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of 2020) and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible. The assessee is given liberty to restore this appeal in the event the ultimate decision to be taken on the declaration filed by the assessee under Section 4 of the said Act is not in favour of the assessee. If such a prayer is made, the Registry shall entertain the prayer without insisting upon any application to be filed for condonation of delay in restoration of the appeal and on such request made by the assessee by filing a miscellaneous petition for restoration, the Registry shall place such petition before the appropriate Division Bench for orders. 6. The tax case appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty. Consequently, the substantial question of law raised is left open. No costs. 02.9.2021
3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ TCA.No.447 of 2021 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J AND SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP,J mka To 1.The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle X, Chennai. TCA.No.447 of 2021 02.9.2021 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 4
- Prakash Dayaram Chandnani, Rajkot vs ITO Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 927/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2019-20
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
- Ratilal Manubhai Dhanani, Amreli vs ITO WD 3(1)(4), AmreliITA 697/RJT/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2015-16
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