Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Madras High Court — Direct Tax

721 rulings

  1. Madras High Court · 14 Aug 2021
    The Tribunal was right in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A).

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-XV, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. JANNANI HOLDINGS

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27020 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85371&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Madras High Court · 14 Aug 2021
    E-Proceeding does not foreclose the conduct of a physical hearing, but has circumscribed four conditions, on which, such hearing shall be conducted manually.

    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1) , SALEM VERSUS SALEM SREE RAMAVILAS CHIT COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27019 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85372&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Madras High Court · 14 Aug 2021
    The Assessing Officer in the present case has established that he has reason to believe for reopening of assessment and there is no infirmity, as such, in reopening of the assessment u/s 147/148.

    M/S. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27018 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85373&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  4. Madras High Court · 13 Aug 2021
    The restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27014 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85366&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Madras High Court · 13 Aug 2021
    General observations are not sufficient to hold an assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ACCEL LIMITED

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 27013 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85367&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  6. Madras High Court · 26 Jul 2021
    Even based on the available materials, if the competent authority could able to identify any under-assessment, then also power under Section 147 shall be invoked by the competent authority.

    M/S. THAMBBI MODERN SPINNING MILLS LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXTHE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (1), SALEM

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26936 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85216&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Madras High Court · 22 Jul 2021
    Notice was issued for reopening of assessment within the period of limitation for the assessment year 2011-12.

    DR. BHARANI R. PALUVAI, BRIDGET BHARANI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-11 (2), CHENNAI.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26924 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85198&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Madras High Court · 12 Jul 2021
    Petitioners are having reasonable cause for such failure for payment of the TDS amount and therefore, the matter is remitted to the first respondent to consider the issue afresh.

    M/S. KAJAH ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HAJI A. ABDUL RAHIMAN SAHIB, HAJI ABDUL SALAM, HAJI A. ABDUL RASHEED, HAJI A. ABDU AZEES, HAJI A. ABDUL RAWUF, 7. HAJI A. ABDUL RAFEEQ VERSUS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MADURAI.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26880 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Madras High Court · 10 Jul 2021
    The petitioners are at liberty to issue suitable instructions to R2 in regard to their bank accounts.

    S. PADMAPRIYA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2 (5) , CHENNAI., THE BRANCH MANAGER

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26876 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85104&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  10. Madras High Court · 10 Jul 2021
    The reason of the learned Single Judge bringing the case under the second proviso is perfectly in order. Therefore, the order made by learned Single Judge is upheld

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) , CHENNAI VERSUS HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM WORKERS' WELFARE CENTRE (CITU) , THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, HINDUSTAN PHOTO FILM MANUFACTURING CO., LTD.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26874 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85110&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  11. Madras High Court · 25 Jun 2021
    HC - Entertaining a Writ Petition before exhausting the appellate remedy is an exception. Undoubtedly, writ proceedings may be entertained before exhausting the appellate remedy - The mixed question of fact and law is to be decided with reference to the original documents and evidences by the appellate authority.

    M/S. STAR AVIATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE – VI (4) , CHENNAI

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26808 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Madras High Court · 25 Jun 2021
    Though the Income Tax Act does not anywhere contemplate issuance of a show cause notice prior to finalisation of scrutiny assessments, as a matter of procedure and good office, the Assessing Authority is expected to crystalise the issues arising from the return of income filed by an assessee, the questionnaires issued under Section 142(1) and notices under Section 143(2) and responses thereto, issue a show cause notice setting out the issues, solicit the response of the assessee and pass orders only thereafter, after hearing the assessee concerned.

    ESHAKTI. COM PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2 (1) , CHENNAI, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26807 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=85024&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Madras High Court · 11 Mar 2021
    No substantial question of law arises for HC's consideration as the issue is already covered by the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, followed in the present case.

    Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26338 (HC-MADRAS)

  14. Madras High Court · 08 Feb 2021
    The exercise of power by the Tribunal is not to be in accordance with Section 254(2A) of the Act the Tribunal has no such power to issue directions, but has got power to grant an interim order under Section 254, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

    M. Kiran Kumar Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26154 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254

  15. Madras High Court · 04 Feb 2021
    Where the matter had been remanded to be re-done, it would hardly make a difference as to whether the remand had been to the TPO or the DRP, thus indicating that the provisions of Section 144C were also governed by the limitation of time set out in Section 153 of the Act.

    Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited Vs CIT, The DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26125 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 153

  16. Madras High Court · 08 Jan 2021
    Nothing was brought on record by the assessee to establish that the agricultural operations were carried on prior to his purchase and after purchase.

    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s GRK Reddy & Sons (HUF)

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 24969 (HC-MADRAS)

  17. Madras High Court · 31 Dec 2020
    There is a conceptual difference between the power of review and the power to reassess, that the Assessing Officer has no power to review, but he has a power to reassess, that the reassessment should be based on fulfillment of certain preconditions and that if the concept of change of opinion is removed, then in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place.

    M/s. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. Vs Union of India, rep. by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central II), The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24921 (HC-MADRAS)

  18. Madras High Court · 29 Dec 2020
    Remuneration and interest received from a firm, to the extent eligible u/s 40(b), would be considered as profits and gains from business or profession of the recipient- partner, however that by itself would not translate such remuneration and interest, to gross receipts or turnover of business independently carried on by the partner.

    Mr.Anandkumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24905 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 44AD

  19. Madras High Court · 17 Dec 2020
    Rejection of assessee's explanation and making additions will not automatically result in interpreting the same as furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

    Shri Babuji Jacob Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24820 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)

  20. Madras High Court · 16 Dec 2020
    Since the assessee's business is wound up during the AY in question, situation of carry forward of loss u/s 70(1) does not arise and thus, the loss incurred by the assessee cannot be disallowed by misconstruing the relevant provisions.

    M/s.Share Aids Private Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (OSD)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24810 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 41(2)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.