SAROJ VINOD KUMAR JAIN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court noted that it was not necessary to decide the substantial questions of law due to subsequent developments, specifically the enactment of the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020. The Court 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 Vivad Se Vishwas Act. The Court directed the Department to process the application at the earliest and communicate the decision. The assessee was granted liberty to restore the appeal if the decision on the declaration was not in their favor. The substantial questions of law were left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain, filed an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Madras 'B' Bench, dated 08.03.2017. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2008-09. The appeal was admitted on substantial questions of law concerning the classification of gains on sale of shares and the genuineness of the sale transaction. 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 22.12.2020.
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 rather than the date of purchase thereof? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the sale transaction entered into by the appellant was not genuine is vitiated by perversity? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the Tribunal incorrectly classified gains as short-term capital gains by using the dematerialization date instead of the purchase date. The assessee also contended that the Tribunal's finding on the genuineness of the sale transaction was perverse. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the substantial questions of law. However, the revenue is the respondent in the appeal against the ITAT's order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Tax Case Appeal No.826 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.826 of 2017 Saroj Vinod Kumar Jain ... 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.2348/Mds/2016. For Appellant : Ms. N.V.Lakshmi for Mr. N.V. Balaji For Respondent : Mr.T. Ravikumar Standing Counsel Page 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.826 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 08.03.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No.2348/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.826 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 22.12.2020 under Section 4 of the Act. Page 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Tax Case Appeal No.826 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.826 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 2/3 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.826 of 2017 M. DURAISWAMY, J. and T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. Rj Tax Case Appeal No.826 of 2017
20.01.2021 2/3 Page 6/6 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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026