MURASOLI TRUST vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/5/2017HC Madras29 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 learned counsel for the assessee informed the Court that Form-3 had been issued to the assessee under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. No finding was reached on the merits of the substantial questions of law, and therefore, no ratio decidendi was established for these specific legal points. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s. Murasoli Trust, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "A" Bench. The appeal concerned the assessment year 2009-10. The High Court admitted the appeal on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee informed the court that they had been issued Form-3 under this Act and sought permission to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in approving the presumption of the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly the provisos, to brand the activities as commercial, even though these provisos are applicable to the last limb of the definition of 'charitable purpose'? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in denying the claim of depreciation in the tax exemption computation as per Section 11 of the Act on the wrong presumption of double deduction, which defied consistent judicial trend? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the provisos to Section 2(15) were wrongly applied and that the denial of depreciation was based on a mistaken premise of double deduction, contrary to established judicial precedent. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on these issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 2(15),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 29.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 M/s.Murasoli Trust New No.180, Old No.93, Kodambakkam High Road, Chennai – 600 034.

... Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions IV), Chennai. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, dated 06.11.2015 passed in I.T.A.No.210/Mds/2014. For Appellant : Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondent : Mr.J.Narayanaswamy

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 J U D G M E N T (Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directed against the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.210/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10. The above appeal has been admitted on 23.01.2017 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law in approving the presumption of the applicability of the amended provisions of Section 2(15) of the Act especially the two provisos below the said section so as to brand the activities as commercial activities even though the said provisos would be applicable to the last limb of the definition of the term 'charitable purpose'? 2.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is correct in law denying the claim of depreciation in the tax exemption computation as per Section 11 of the Act on the wrong presumption of double deduction which defied the consistent judicial trend on the said issue?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 2. We have heard Mr.M.Kaushik for Mr.S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.J.Narayanaswamy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 3. 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 17th March 2020. 4. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/ assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form-3 on 03.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. Page 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. [M.D., J.] [T.V.T.S., J.] Index : Yes/No 29.03.2021 Internet : Yes (1/2) mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "A" Bench 2.The Assistant Director of Income Tax (Exemptions IV), Chennai. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.5 of 2017

29.03.2021 (1/2) Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 2(15)

All 2,878 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(15) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →