-
HC; The mere fact that no return has been filed setting out a value for the property in question, would not be material.
T. S. Hajee Moosa & Co. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-8
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28691 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There is no substitute for issuance of notice u/s 148 to the correct address of the assessee in time and that the impugned communication asking assessee to come for the hearing is liable to be interfered.
A. P. Suryaprakasam Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28669 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 148
-
Since assessee did not pay the tax within the period stipulated under Section 140A, the prosecution against him was maintainable.
S.P. Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28666 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 276C(2)
-
The intimation dated June 13, 2017 is well within the knowledge of the AO.
K.Suresh Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28656 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 148
-
Revenue can go ahead against the assessee in case if that is necessary, in accordance with law depending upon the order passed by ITAT.
Taqa Neyveli Power Company Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28599 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Though section 10A, as amended, is a provision for deduction, the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking under Chapter IV of the Act and not at the stage of computation of the total income under Chapter VI.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS AMNET SYSTEMS PVT LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28562 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86729&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Once the appeal is filed, during the pendency of the appeal, it is open to the assessing authority to make a demand.
K 553 V. THUTHARIPALAYAM PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) COIMBATORE.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28547 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86722&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no merit in challenge against the assessment order passed u/s 153A.
Durai Murugan Kathir Anand Vs Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28543 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It is established principle that there has to some mens rea on part of the Assessee and there should be some amount of tax evaded or concealed, which is absent in the present case.
K.E.Gnanavel Raja Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28484 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Deduction of any sum being interest payable under clause (d) of section 43B of the Act, shall be allowed if such interest has been actually paid and any interest referred to in that clause, which has been converted into a loan or borrowing, shall not be deemed to have been actually paid.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TAMIL NADU-I, MADRAS VERSUS M/S. TAMIL NADU WATER INVESTMENT CO. LTD.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28477 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86659&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We do not find any infirmity or illegality in initiating the penalty proceedings and the consequential orders passed by the assessing officer as confirmed by the appellate authorities.
M/S RAMAMURTHY METAL DECORATING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LTD., SRI A. RAMAMURTHY VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28426 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86611&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
A mere statement that the land was situated in urban area and the agriculture was not carried out at the relevant point of time could not be concluded as suppression.
H. Ameerdeen Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28365 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Liberty be given to the Revenue to initiate reassessment proceedings in accordance with the as amended reassessment provisions after making all compliances as required by law.
Vellore Institute of Technology Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28344 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Where all the evidence had been produced and the CIT(A), after full investigation of the evidence and examination of the accounts, had given a definite finding on the question in issue, the Tribunal's order of remand is held to be invalid.
Ratanchand Manoharmal Vs Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28296 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The Petitioner sent a reply before expiry of deadline, therefore revenue is directed to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the petitioner on March 15, 2021.
Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28295 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Since there is no possibility of disclosure of full and true income, regular assessment would be a proper method and settlement cannot be made.
Akash Fertility Centre and Hospital Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28294 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When the Appellate Tribunal has factually recorded the finding that there was no suppression of facts and the assessee has originally disclosed the receipt of the sale property, merely claimed deduction it cannot be said that there was wilful evasion of Tax.
SHRI. H. AMEERDEEN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28290 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86449&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As long as there is no deliberate Act or willful act on the part of the accused to evade the payment of tax, mere failure to pay the tax will not constitute the offence under Section 276C(2).
S.P. VELAYUTHAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRLCE – 14 (1) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28288 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86451&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
For income to be considered as disclosed income, the same should have been disclosed in the return filed by the assessee before the search or requisition
M/S. KELD ELLENTOFT INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III (3) , CHENNAI
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28213 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86412&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Circular No.14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. DCM HYUNDAI LIMITED
(2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28155 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86328&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.