H.VINOD KUMAR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided not to adjudicate the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments. The court noted the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, and was informed that the assessee had filed a declaration under Section 4 of this Act. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of on the ground that the assessee had availed the benefit of the Act. The Department was directed to process the application at the earliest. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the ultimate decision on the declaration was not in their favor. The substantial questions of law were left undecided. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal with liberty to restore.
What were the facts?
The assessee, H. Vinod Kumar, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, dated March 8, 2017. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2008-09. 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 a declaration had been filed under Section 4 of this Act on December 24, 2020. The High Court noted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the appeal pending given the assessee's availing of the benefit under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in treating the gains on sale of shares as short-term capital gains instead of long-term capital gains by considering the date of dematerialization of shares and not the date of purchase thereof, as per Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the sale transaction entered into by the appellant was not genuine is vitiated by perversity? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the capital gains should be treated as long-term capital gains, implying the date of purchase should be considered for determining the holding period, not the date of dematerialization. The assessee also contended that the Tribunal's finding regarding the genuineness of the sale transaction was perverse. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the Revenue on these issues. However, the Revenue is the respondent in the appeal against the Tribunal's order which presumably favored the Revenue on these points.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 H. Vinod Kumar ... Appellant v.
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, 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 'B' Bench, Chennai, dated 08.03.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.2347/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi for Mr. N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T. Ravikumar Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 Standing Counsel 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 08.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2347/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The appeal was admitted on 06.03.2018 on the following substantial questions of law:- " (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in law in treating the gains on sale of shares as short term capital gains instead of long term capital gains by taking into account the date of dematerializaton of shares and not the date of purchase there of? (ii) Whether the the finding of the Tribunal on the sale transaction entered into by the appellant not being genuine, is vitiated by perversity ?" Page 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 3.. We have heard Ms. N.V.Lakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T. Ravikumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 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 17th March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that the assessee has already filed the declaration on 24.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 6. In the light of the fact that the assessee has already availed the benefit under the Act, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. At the same time, safeguarding the interest of the assessee in the event the order to be passed by the Department under the Act is not in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of on the ground that the assessee has already filed a declaration and the Department shall process the application at the earliest in accordance with the said Act and communicate the decision to the assessee at the earliest. As observed, 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 Division Bench for orders.
Page 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 7. With this observation, the Tax Case Appeal stands disposed of with the aforementioned liberty and Consequently, the Substantial Questions of Law are left open. No costs. (M.D.,J.) (T.V.T.S.,J.) 20.01.2021 1/3 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes Rj To 1. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai Page 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.825 of 2017
20.01.2021 1/3 Page 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
More judgments on Section 45
- Mukesh Mishra, Thane vs ACIT, Circle 1, ThaneITA 5853/MUM/2026[2020-2021]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Sip Infotech Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 5355/MUM/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2019-2020
- Rajiv Kumar, Delhi vs DCIT, Circle 67(1), DelhiITA 3538/DEL/2026[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 19 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs Nisha Jhaveri, MumbaiITA 2389/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2013-14
- Arokiaswamy Velumani, Bengaluru vs Income Tax Officer 15(3)(1), MumbaiITA 1946/MUM/2026[2023-2024]Status: Disposed24 Sept 2026AY 2023-2024
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026