-
Assessee's case that this advance is paid to the holding Company for the investments made by them for securing land to be developed by the assessee.There is a Joint Development Agreement in which the assessee and the holding Company agreed to share profits at the rate of 50% each.
M/S. HANSA ESTATES P. LTD., VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE-II (2) CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22995 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83170&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer was not aware of the amalgamation of the company moreover, the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 had been filed on 07.03.2016 in the name of OAS by the appellant confirming the position that OAS was a functioning entity. Further, income tax refund issued by the Department in favour of OAS has been duly received and encashed by the appellant. Therefore, appellant cannot canvass the point that OAS was nonexistent and the proceedings initiated in its name would be bad in law.
M/S. OASYS GREEN TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD – 5 (1)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22994 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83171&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
By virtue of scheme of amalgamation all the existing and the future litigation of the transferor company will be transferred and continued in the name of transferee company viz., M/s.Accenture Services Private Limited with effect from 1st April 2012. This M/s. Accenture Services Private Limited has subsequently merged with the M/s. Accenture Solutions Private Limited.
ACCENTURE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., (SUCCESSOR OF ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD.) VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22979 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83153&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue does not dispute the fact that the number of rooms in the assessee's hotel remained at 57 and that there was no increase in the number of rooms and only 18 rooms out of 57 rooms were renovated and repaired. Assessee specifically contended that the renovation and repairs neither increases their capacity nor does it empower to revise the basic room tariff because it can be done only after considering further facts such as market condition remaining in Madurai City and with the concurrence of M/s.ITC Limited, as they only have a franchisee agreement with the assessee.
PANDIAN HOTELS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, MADURAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22966 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83141&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Section 47 of the Act deals with transaction not regarded as transfer. Section 47(v) of the Act states that nothing contained in Section 45 of the Act shall apply to any transfer of capital asset by subsidiary company to the holding company if (a) the whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company is held by the holding company, and (b) the holding company is an Indian company. The fact that the company is an Indian company is not disputed.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SHARDLOW INDIA LTD., CHENNAI-11
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22963 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83134&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The operative part of the Order of the learned Tribunal clearly shows that the matter has only been remanded to the Assessing Authority with similar directions given by the Tribunal in its earlier decision in the case of Aishwarya & Company Private Limited.
M/S. CAPRICORN FOOD PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE-I (3) , CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22962 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83136&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The sum of ₹ 3.00 Crores received by the respondent company from its subsidiary relevant to the assessment year 2004-05, is not deemed dividend within the meaning of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ACCEL LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22961 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Imposition of penalty and realisation thereof is not a regular source of income for the Income Tax Department. It is only the justifiably imposition of tax which is intended to be recovered and unless there is a mens rea or a guilty animus on the part of the Assessee, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is an exception rather than a rule.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. CORE CARBONS PVT LTD
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22960 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83138&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding recorded by the AO is sufficient and a clear indication of his compliance of the procedure u/s. 14A(2). The AO at the first instance has considered whether the claim of the assessee is correct and thereafter only has proceeded to determine the amount by adopting the procedure under Rule 8D.
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Tamilnadu Industrial DevelopmentCorporation Limited
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22957 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A
-
Petition under Section 391 of Cr.PC had been filed by the Petitioners even at the time of presentation of the appeal. These documents sought to be marked as additional evidence are not new documents and they are documents relating to filing of returns with the Respondent in respect of earlier years and the copies of which are also available with the Respondent.
M/S. GANGOTHRI TEXTILES LIMITED, SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIBERWAL, SRI MOHANLAL TIBERWAL VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE, COIMBATORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22952 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83130&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal did not examine the nature of transaction and the issue as to whether the CIT(A) was justified in accepting the cause shown by the assessee to be a reasonable cause to be entitled to the benefit of Section 273B. The decision, which has been referred to in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, does not relate to the assessee. Tribunal referred to the said decision and allowed the Revenue's appeal and affirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. We find that there is no discussion as to why those two decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case respectively dated 31.10.2013 and 22.7.2014 Could not be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
SRI. M. PALANI ADAICALAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, PUDUCHERRY
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22940 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83121&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Revenue stake involved in the present case is much below the limit of rupees one crore for withdrawal of the appeal by the Revenue, since the present case involved some audit objection because of exemption in the said Circular, the learned counsel for the Revenue press the appeal on merits.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS SMT. UMAYAL ANNAMALAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22939 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83122&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT(A) rendered a factual finding that the assessee has assigned separate values for the immovables consisting of land and building and movables consisting of furnitures and fixtures, plant and machinery, patents, net current assets and therefore, concluded that the consideration for transfer cannot be called as a lump sum consideration. It was decided that, the sale effected by the assessee does not constitute slump sale as per Section 2(42C) of the Act and hence the provisions of Section 50B will not be applicable.
M/S. SANMAR SPECIALITY CHEMICALS LIMITED VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE VI (1) CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22932 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83113&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal concluded that the artificial definition made by Lower Authorities with reference to gift and settlement was not appropriate. The Tribunal was of the opinion that for the purpose of Section 49(1)(ii) of the Act, there was no difference between gift and settlement and that in the instant case, the settlement made with the assessee's brother could not attract capital gains on this count. There are no reasons as to how the Tribunal came to such a conclusion.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHENNAI VERSUS SHRI. S. YOGARATHNAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22923 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83107&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Substantial questions of law framed for consideration in this appeal were answered against the Revenue in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Calcutta Export Company as amended provision of Sec 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act should be interpreted liberally and equitable and applies retrospectively from the date when Section 40(a)(ia) was inserted i.e., with effect from the Assessment Year 2005-2006 so that an assessee should not suffer unintended and deleterious consequences beyond what the object and purpose of the provision mandates.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. ARCHEAN GRANITES PRIVATE LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22922 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83108&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Though the audit objection may serve as information, the basis of which the Income Tax Officer can act, the ultimate action must depend directly and solely on the formation of belief by the Income Tax Officer on his own, where such information passed on to him by the audit that income has escaped assessment.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. FARIDA PRIME TANNERY PVT LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22921 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee is expected to file his return of income along with his books and documents. It is for the Assessing Officer to consider the same in accordance with law and complete the assessment. The assessee is not there to advice the Assessing Officer as to how he should go about in assessing the income of the assessee, as it is the statutory duty of the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the Sale Deed dated 02.05.2008, is only the document, which is the subject matter of the assessment. This document was very much available with the Assessing Officer when he completed the assessment under Section 143(3), dated 05.12.2011.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 COIMBATORE. VERSUS SHRI. K.R. JAYARAM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22920 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83111&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Whether the petitioner was entitled to adjust the loss of the brought forward from the books of accounts of the transferor company was subject matter of discussion before the assessment orders were passed for the respective Assessment Years.
M/S. T. STANES & COMPANY LIMITED, VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE I (2) , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, RACE COURSE, COIMBATORE
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22669 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner Association is directed to submit a representation with respect to nil/lower deduction of income tax to the authorities concerned, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such submission being made, the authorities concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner Association within a period of four weeks thereafter. Till such time, the order of interim injunction already granted, shall stand extended.
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22633 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82951&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the unnamed Chartered Accountant had purportedly advised the petitioner to delay in filing returns. He could also have not signed the report of audit in the prescribed form. It is perhaps the report of the Chartered Accountant who finalized the account for the petitioner later was made available for the assessment and the return was filed belatedly.
M/S. IG3 INFRA LIMITED, VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CHENNAI, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, UNION OF INDIA
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22630 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82946&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.