The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4
High Court
29 Jun 2016 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · hc_cis_mas
Parties
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4
Date of order
29 Jun 2016
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Income Tax Chennai v. Shri A.balaramrep. By Shri A.balaji154 Kutchery Roadchennai 4, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 29/6/2016
C O R A M
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.ManikumarandThe Honourable Mr.Justice D.Krishnakumar
Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006
The Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai....Appellant
Vs
Shri A.Balaramrep. By Shri A.Balaji154 Kutchery RoadChennai 4.
...Respondent
Prayer:Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, Chennai dated 7/10/2005 in ITA No.956/Mds/96.
For appellant : Mr.T.Ravikumar Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax.
For respondent : No appearance- - - - - -
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.Manikumar,J)
This Appeal has been filed against the order of the Income Tax
Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras, dated 7/10/2005.
2. The substantial question of law raised in the instant appeal
is:-
“Whetheronthefactsand
circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
right in holding that investment in construction of a commercial complex is sufficient to claim the benefit of Sec.54F of the Income Tax Act?”
3. Though Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
Income Tax Department made submissions on the substantial questions of law, on going through the materials on record, we find that the tax demanded inclusive of interest is Rs.3,32,032/- and that the same falls within the ambit of Circular bearing No.21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015.
4. In the light of the aforesaid Circular, while dismissing the Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006, substantial question of law raised is left open. No costs.
mvs.Index: yes/Nowebsite: Yes/No.
(S.M.K.,J) (D.K.K.,J) 29[th] June 2016.
4
S.MANIKUMAR,J
a n d
D.KRISHNAKUMAR,J
mvs.
Tax Case Appeal No.370 of 2006
29/6/2016
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 — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client 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.