-
HC - The disallowance of expenditure incurred to earn exempted income u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, cannot exceed such exempt income itself during the relevant AY. The disallowance of expenditure incurred for the year in question only can be considered under Section 14A of the Act and no such hypothetical earning in future as against no expenditure incurred for that, is envisaged under Section 14A.
M/s. Marg Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24445 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A
-
Once a statutory amendment is being made to remove an undue hardship to the assessee or to remove an apparent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Vummudi Amarendran
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24410 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50C
-
By deciding the question of limitation of AY 2000-01 against Revenue, and by holding that there was no tax liability for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05, these two sets of orders passed by ITAT have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be permitted.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Emgeeyar Pictures P.Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24382 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer by virtually reopening the proceedings concluded under Section 201 of the Act pursuant to the order dated 03.2.2014 passed by the CIT(A) concerned.
M/s.Sutherland Global ServicesPvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-6
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24370 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 40(i)(ia)
-
Assessee has an option to adopt NAV method or DCF method and unless the AO is able to bring out any evidence of abuse of benevolent provisions with an intention to defraud the revenue, the option given to the assessee shall be held to be absolute.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.VVA Hotels Private Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24368 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(viib)
-
In terms of Section 14A, the only expenditure, which was proved to be incurred in relation to earning of tax free income, could be disallowed and such provision could not be extended to disallow the expenditure, which was assumed to have been incurred for earning tax free income.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Celebrity Fashion Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24346 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A
-
In view of the matters having already taken long so far to be decided right from AY 2002-03 to AY 2009-10, after which about 10-11 years have now passed by, we request the learned Tribunal to decide the appeals now within a period of six months from today.
M/s. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd. Vs The DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24312 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There are several instances where residential properties are put to use for non-residential purposes and this cannot be a test to decide the nature of the property under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, especially, in assessee's case, where the letting out of the property for non-residential purpose was much after the purchase on 03.02.2011 and the lease agreement was on 21.03.2011.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Ramesh Shroff
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24260 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 54F
-
Assessee's contract was composite and consequently that the assessee had failed to make a full and true disclosure of income, as putting the cart before the horse.
Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, International Taxation – 1 Vs M/s.Hitachi Power Europe GmbH
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24217 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Attempt to blame the Chartered Accountant cannot result in the assessee's exoneration.
M/s.Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24216 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Transfer pursuant to approval of scheme of arrangement, is not a contractual transfer but a statutorily approved transfer and cannot be brought within the definition of the word sale.
M/s.Areva T & D India Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24215 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50B
-
Advance received by assessee in subject AY 2007-08 pursuant to entering into development agreement and which was returned in 2015 upon cancellation of DA, not taxable as income from other sources.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24214 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The allowability or otherwise of interest payment u/s 36 (1) (iii) depends on the facts and circumstances of the case.
M/s.Hansa Estates P. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24204 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
The investment in the new asset for the purpose of deduction under Section 54F need not be out of sale consideration received on sale of the original asset.
Ms.Moturi Lakshmi Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24199 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 54
-
For Sec.10B deduction purposes there is no need to establish the direct nexus between the income and the undertaking and where the assessee is engaged in the sole activity of export, entire business income of the 100% EOU will be the profits of the business of the undertaking.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Oliver Valves India Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24198 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
-
Income from letting out of premises /developed-space along with other facilities in an industrial park or SEZ would be charged as business income.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tidel Park Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23126 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The Primary Cooperative Societies had acted as business correspondents to pass on the cash benefit as mandated by the State Government therefore at least this part of the transaction between the petitioners and their member-Societies would qualify for being exempted under the proviso to Section 194N of the Act.
Tirunelveli District Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23110 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 194N, 201
-
HC - Revenue warned against filing frivolous appeal. Precious time should not be wasted during covid.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.SPL Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23079 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If the assessee had failed to raise the factual issue before the AO at the first instance and consciously participated in the proceedings, could not have been permitted to canvass such factual issue for the first time before the Tribunal.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23045 (HC-MADRAS)
-
A purposive interpretation has to be given of provision mentioned in sec.47(v). Otherwise, the provision mentioned in sec.47(v) itself would become redundant.
The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Shardlow India Ltd.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 23044 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 47(v)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.