M/S. Nagaraj & Company Pvt. Ltd.,156, Developed Industrial Estate,Perungudi,Chennai - 600 096Pan Aaacbn2265K v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle-Iv(4)Chennai - 600 034
High Court
18 Feb 2021 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court Β· hc_cis_mas
Parties
M/S. Nagaraj & Company Pvt. Ltd.,156, Developed Industrial Estate,Perungudi,Chennai - 600 096Pan Aaacbn2265K v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle-Iv(4)Chennai - 600 034
Date of order
18 Feb 2021
Assessment year(s)
2007-2008
Outcome
Dismissed
The order β as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In M/S. Nagaraj & Company Pvt. Ltd.,156, Developed Industrial Estate,Perungudi,Chennai - 600 096Pan Aaacbn2265K v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,Company Circle-Iv(4)Chennai - 600 034, the High Court (2021) dismissed the appeal under Section 260A, Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: And (ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right inreworking the profits under section 115JB asRs.3,58,79,307/- on the ground that the profit on thesale of land credited to the capital reserves by theappellant are to be treated as normal profits forarriving at book profits under...
Decision: In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn.
Summary auto-generated from the order below β read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI
Tax Case Appeal No.809 of 2016 andC.M.P.No.17862 of 2016 and 17863 of 2016
M/s. Nagaraj & Company Pvt. Ltd.,156, Developed Industrial Estate,Perungudi,Chennai - 600 096PAN AAACBN2265K ... Appellant vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,Company Circle-IV(4)Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondent
Tax Case Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, βCβ Bench, Chennai dated 02.08.2016 passed inITA.No.450/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year 2007.08.
Appeal against the O/O of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) β 8 Room No.222, Aayakar Bhavan, Main Building, IIFloor, 121, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034and made in ITA.No. 55/2013-14 order dated 16/11/2015 andagainst the office of the Assitant Commissioner of Income TaxCompany Circle IV (4) 4[th] Floor, Main Building, 121, MahatmaGandhi Road, Nungambakkam,, Chennai 600 034, and made inITA/PAN.No. and dated 29/01/2013 the assessment year2007-2008.
For Appellant : Mr. R. Sivaraman
For Respondent : Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, St Standing Counsel
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment was Delivered by M.DURAISWAMY, J)
This appeal filed by theassessee under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 02.08.2016 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, βCβ Bench, Chennai ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I..TA.No.450/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Year2007.08.
2. The appeal was admitted on 21.11.2016 on the followingSubstantial Question s of Law:
β(i) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the capital profit on the saleof the fixed assets of the company cannot be takendirectly to the reserves and surplus in the balancesheet and the same has to be routed through the profitand loss account to arrive at the correct bookprofits under section 115JB of the Act? And
(ii) Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right inreworking the profits under section 115JB asRs.3,58,79,307/- on the ground that the profit on thesale of land credited to the capital reserves by theappellant are to be treated as normal profits forarriving at book profits under section 115JB? "
.3. We have heard Mr. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for theappellant and Mr. Karthik Ranganathan, learned StandingCounsel for the respondent.
4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Question of Law framed for consideration on accountof certain subsequent developments. The Government of Indiaenacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3 of2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and for mattersconnected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act of theParliament received the assent of the President on 17[th] March2020 and published in the Gazette of India on 17[th] March 2020. 5. We are informed by the learned counsel for theappellant that the assessee has already been issued with Form β
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3 on 29.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed.
Sd/-
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3 on 29.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.
6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed aswithdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected MiscellaneousPetition is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar //True Copy//Sub Assistant RegistrarRj To 1. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai βCβ Bench.2.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Room No. 22, Aayakar Bhavan, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 34.3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Company Circle-IV(4) Chennai - 600 034.Tax Case Appeal No.809 of 2016 andC.M.P.No.17862 of 2016 & 17863 of 2016RR(CO)GN(18/03/2021)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only β not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CAβclient relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.