Tca/797/2017 Of M/S. Kakb Developers v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.03.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMYANDTHE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.797 of 2017and C.M.P.No.20010 of 2017 M/s.KAKB Developers,10 & 11, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,Chennai City Centre,4[th] Floor, Mylapore,Chennai – 600 004. ... Appellant The Income Tax Officer,Corporate Range – 5, Now Corporate Ward 3(4),Chennai – 600 034.... Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras"D" Bench, dated 21.06.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.3254/Mds/2016,made against the order of the Commissioner of Income TaxAppeals-4 in ITA.No.89/15-16 Assessment year 2012-13/CIT(A)-4,dated 29.09.2016 for the Assessment year 2012-13 against theorder of Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 3(4)/2014-15,dated 27.03.2015 for the Assessment year 2012 -13. For Appellant : Mr.R.VenkatanarayananFor Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity), is directedagainst the order dated 21.06.2017 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' forbrevity) in I.T.A.No 3254/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The appellant has raised the following SubstantialQuestions of Law in the grounds of appeal: “1)Whether the Tribunal was right in law inholding that the gain arising on the sale of landwhich was held a capital asset should be assessed asprofit from business in terms of Sec.28 of the Act asagainst long term capital gains offered by theassessee? 2)Whether the transaction of developing the landinto the plots by a “Developer” pursuant to adevelopment agreement without the assessee itselfplotting it out would amount to adventure in thenature of trade and income therefrom should beassessed as business income and not as long termcapital gains?” 3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel forthe appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned SeniorStanding Counsel for the respondent/Revenue. 4.It may not be necessary for this Court to decide theSubstantial Questions 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 the appellant/assessee that the assessee had already been issued with Form – 3on 30.12.2020 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. va Sub Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench Madras "D" Bench 2. The Income Tax Officer,Corporate Range – 5, Now Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai – 600 034. Now Corporate Ward 3(4), Chennai – 600 034. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-4, Chennai-34. Chennai-34. +1cc to M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, SR.No.19747.+1cc to Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate, SR.No.19760. Tax Case Appeal No.797 of 2017and C.M.P.No.20010 of 2017Ak-II(CO)CSR 30.04.2021