Shri Kummathi Rameswar Reddy, Flat 6, Viswaretha Apartments, Old v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax -9, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26.03.2021CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYAND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Shri Kummathi Rameswar Reddy,Flat 6, Viswaretha Apartments,Old No.28, New No.16, 7[th] Cross street,Shastri Nagar,Adyar,Chennai – 20. ... Appellant in both TCAsvs. The Commissioner of Income Tax -9,Chennai. ... Respondent in both TCA Appeals preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961, against the common order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench, dated 05.05.2016 in ITA.Nos.335& 209/Mds/2016 for the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. As against the order dated 11/01/2016 by the office of theCommissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5 in ITA No.82/CIT(A)5/2014-15 Assessment year 2011-2012 and as against the order dated20/11/2015 by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5 in ITA No.28/CIT(A)/2015-16 Assessment year 2012-13and as against the order dated 23/03/2015 by the office of theDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle-17(1)Assessment year 2012-13 and as against the order dated28/03/2014 by the office of the Deputy Commissioner of IncomeTax, Salary Range V, Assessment year 2011-12. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) are directedagainst the common order dated 05.05.2016 made in ITA.Nos.335& 209/Mds/2016 on the file of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench (for brevity, the Tribunal) for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Assessment Years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. 2.The appeals were admitted on 15.09.2009 on the followingsubstantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the stock appreciation rightsreceived by an employee of a subsidiary companyincorporated in India from a foreign holdingcompany can be taxable under the head “salaries”? (ii) Whether the stock appreciation rightsreceived by the assessee is a capital receipt andhence not taxable? (iii) Whether the stock appreciationrights received by the appellant is a capitalasset and if so whether the gain can at all betaxed in the absence of cost of acquisition ?” 3. We have heard Mr. N.V. Balaji, learned counsel for theappellant and MR. T. Ravikumar, learned Senior StandingCounsel for the respondent. 4. It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions of Law framed for consideration onaccount of certain subsequent developments. The Government ofIndia enacted the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 (Act 3of 2020) to provide for resolution of disputed tax and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act ofthe Parliament 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 –3 on 04.03.2021 and the learned counsel for the appellant seekspermission of this Court to withdraw the appeals. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel forthe appellant, the Tax Case Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Rj To 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax -9, Chennai. Chennai. 2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, ''A'' Bench. Chennai, ''A'' Bench. 3.The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals -5)Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34.Nungambakkam, Chennai – 34. 4.The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,Non Corporate Circle – 17(1),Nungambakkam, Ch – 34.Non Corporate Circle – 17(1),Nungambakkam, Ch – 34. +cc to M/s.N.V.Balaji, CASR 20355+cc to M/S.T.Ravikumar, CASR 19755 T.C.A.Nos.420 & 421 of 2017 SSN(CO)baf 11/05/2021