M/S.Mega City Development v. The Assistant Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25.03.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Tax Case Appeal No.799 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.20021 of 2017 M/s.Mega City Development Corporation, 10 & 11, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai City Centre, 4th Floor, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004.

... Appellant/Appellant Vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Range - 5, Chennai - 600 034.

... Respondent/Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, dated 21.06.2017 passed in I.T.A.No.3255/Mds/2016, Assessment Year 2012-13 and against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Chennai 34, dated 19.09.2016 passed in PAN No. AAKFM7436Q passed by Assessment Year 2012-13 and against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD)Corporate Range-5, Chennai 600 034 passed in PAN No.AAKFM7436Q Assessment Year 2011-12.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan For Respondent : Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Senior Standing Counsel

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 21.06.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench, ('the Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A.No 3255/Mds/2016 for the assessment year 201213.

2.The appellant has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law in the grounds of appeal:

"1)Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the gain arising on the sale of land which was held a capital asset should be assessed as profit from business in terms of Sec.28 of the Act as against long term capital gains offered by the assessee?

2)Whether the transaction of developing the land into the plots by a "Developer" pursuant to a development agreement without the assessee itself plotting it out would amount to adventure in the nature of trade and income therefrom should be assessed as business income and not as long term capital gains?"

3.We have heard Mr.R.Venkatanarayanan, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, learned Senior 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 had already been issued with Form - 3 on 14.12.2020 and the learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal. 6.In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tax Case Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar va

To

1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras "D" Bench

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Corporate Range - 5, Chennai - 600 034.

3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Chennai-600 034.

+1cc to Mr.Subbaraya Aiyar, Advocate, S.R.No.19749 +1cc to Mr.T.Ravi Kumar, Advocate, S.R.No.19761 Tax Case Appeal No.799 of 2017 and C.M.P.No.20021 of 2017 NR(CO) KM(30/04/2021)