THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T vs. VIJAYA SRINIVASAN

TCA.Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 27.08.2019 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM and The Honourable Mrs.Justice V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai. ...Appellant Vs Smt. Vijaya Srinivasan ...Respondent APPEALS under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the common order dated 30.08.2013 made in ITA.Nos.135 and 136/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09. For Appellant: Mr.T.Ravikumar, SSC assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, SSC For Respondent: Mr.R.Kumar COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment was delivered by T.S.Sivagnanam,J) We have heard Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel assisted by Ms.R.Hemalatha, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant – Revenue and Mr.R.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - assessee. 1/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 2.These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are directed against the common order dated 30.08.2013 made in ITA.Nos.135 and 136/Mds/2013 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2008-09. 3.The appeals were admitted on 18.08.2015 on the following substantial questions of law : “(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that shares held by the assessee for a longer period is to be treated as investment resulting in long term capital gains and shares held for shorter duration was to be considered as income from business? (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in amending the order passed in ITA 1846 and 1847 which amounted to review of the original order passed in M.P.Nos.101 and 102/mds/2013 especially when the Tribunal did not have any such power of review? (iii) Is not the finding of the Tribunal perverse especially when it had held the shares held for a period of 30 days were to be treated as short term and for a period of more than 30 days were to be treated as long term investment and the same cannot be the yardstick to determine the taxability of income under the head business? and (iv) Whether the computation of income on profit on sale shares constitute long term capital gains or business income?" 4.The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submits that the 2/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 above appeals are not pursued by the Revenue on account of the low tax effect in terms of Circular No.17/2019 dated 08.8.2019 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. By the said Circular, the monetary limit for filing or pursuing an appeal before the High Court has been increased to Rs.1 Crore. It is further submitted that the tax effect in the respective cases is less than the threshold limit. 5. In the light of the said submissions, the above tax case appeals are dismissed on account of the low tax effect. The substantial questions of law framed are left open. In the event the tax effect in the respective cases is above the threshold limit fixed in the said circular, liberty is granted to the Revenue to make a mention to this Court to restore the appeals to be heard and decided on merits. No costs. (T.S.S.J.) (V.B.S.J.) 27.08.2019 cse Speaking (or) Non Speaking Order Index : Yes (or) No To The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'A' Bench. 3/4 http://www.judis.nic.in TCA.Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 T.S.SIVAGNANAM,J. AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN,J. cse TCA.Nos.567 and 568 of 2015 27.08.2019 4/4 http://www.judis.nic.in