-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
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
-
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)
-
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)
-
This plea of prospective application of clause (x) in Section 56(2) would not come to the aid and assistance of the assessee because the assessee has been held to be a representative assessee and not an association of persons.
The Commissioner of Income tax Vs Shriram Ownership Trust
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24802 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(vii)
-
To attract the offence of Sec. 278 there must be material that the accused has instigated or invited another to commit offence.
The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation) Vs Smt.Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram, Karti P.Chidambaram
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24798 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Assessee had been using the mark Redington since 1993 and even obtained a Certificate of Registration of the trademark in its name with effect from Feb 2000, while the AE was established only in 2005 and there was no documentary evidence to prove that the AE became the owner of the Trademark.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Redington (India) Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24768 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Merely because the claim of expenditure made by the Assessee is found to be a wrong claim and is disallowed, it does not per se attract imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
Rattha Citadines Boulevard Chennai Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24758 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1) (c)
-
It may not be necessary for this Court to decide the Substantial Questions of Law framed for consideration.
M/s. Nannusamy Mohan(HUF) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24686 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Charitable nature of the Trust would not be lost merely because the Trust profits from publishing newspapers.
M/s.Thanthi Trust Vs The Director of Income Tax (Exemptions)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24623 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Interest received by bank in advance on discounting of bills against letter of credit is taxable on accrual basis and not on receipt, i.e. mercantile system of accounting.
M/s.The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24528 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Perversity can be taken up in an appeal u/s. 260A.
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri. Rakesh Sarin
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24468 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 260A
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.