SHRI M.R. DURAI RAJ vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

PDF · subscribers
TCA/709/2016HC Madras21 April 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. The Court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was informed by the assessee's counsel that the assessee had been issued Form-3 under this Act. Consequently, the assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal. In view of the assessee's submission, the High Court dismissed the Tax Case Appeal as withdrawn. No specific finding was given on the merits of the substantial questions of law. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri M.R. Durai Raj, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order dated 26.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras "D" Bench. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2007-08. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law. Subsequently, the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, was enacted. The assessee was issued Form-3 under this Act on 08.04.2021. Based on this development, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Tribunal was right in not holding that the value of property allotted to the Assessee in the course of settlement with his brothers should be the fair market value of property given up by the Assessee in exchange for the property allotted to him? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act should be invoked for determination of the cost of acquisition in the exchange of properties between the co-owners? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the value of property allotted should be determined based on the fair market value of the property given up in exchange. The assessee also questioned the applicability of Section 49 of the Income Tax Act for determining the cost of acquisition in an exchange of properties between co-owners. 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 49

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.04.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016 Shri M.R. Durai Raj 222, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Coimbatore – 641 012.

... Appellant Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 1(3), Coimbatore. ... Respondent

Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 26.04.2016 passed in I.T.A.No.2510/Mds/2014, Assessment Year 2007-08. For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar

Senior Standing Counsel Page 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016 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 26.04.2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2510/Mds/2014 for the assessment year 2007-08. The above appeal has been admitted on 03.10.2016 on the following Substantial Questions of Law: "1.Whether the Tribunal was right in not holding that the value of property allotted to the Assessee in the course of settlement with his brothers should be the fair market value of property given up by the Assessee in exchange for the property allotted to him? 2.Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of Section 49 of the Act should be invoked for determination of the cost of acquisition in the exchange of properties between the co-owners?” Page 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016 2. We have heard Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.R.Senthil Kumar, 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 08.04.2021 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.709 of 2016 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.] [K.R., J.] 21.04.2021

Index : Yes/No

Internet : Yes

mkn To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench 2.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle – 1(3), Coimbatore. Page 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mkn Tax Case Appeal No.709 of 2016

21.04.2021 Page 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

More judgments on Section 49

All 176 judgments and leading authorities on Section 49 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →