-
As the estimation of Income Tax is essentially a fact finding exercise, which becomes final at the hands of the final fact finding authority of Income Tax namely, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and we would not have entertained this appeal which lies under section 260A of the Act, only on the 'substantial question of law' arising from the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. S. ALBERT & CO. P. LTD.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22629 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82948&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Deductions u/s. 10A/10B have to be made 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.
M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22620 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
-
If the service utilized by the petitioner abroad was for preexisting business in Indonesia, the petitioner could have legitimately taken benefit of exception carved in Sec. 9(1)(vii)(b).
Shriram Capital Limited Vs The Director of Income Tax, (International Taxation)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22617 (HC-MADRAS)
-
In the impugned communications dated 14.12.2015 and 28.11.2016, the respondent has not denied that the petitioner had truly and fully disclosed all the materials that were required for completing the assessments.e assessment.
M/S. INTERNATIONAL FLAVOURS AND FRAGRANCES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT – II
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22527 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82919&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From the reading of letter dated 01.01.2011 of the said MD IN Services Private Limited UK, the non-resident overseas company indicates that the service provided by them to the petitioner was in the nature of consultancy services. Payments made by the petitioner to the said UK company would be an income deemed to accrue/arise in India within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/S. SHRIRAM CAPITAL LIMITED VERSUS THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , CHENNAI AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION – I (2) , CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22526 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82920&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The Income Tax Act, 1961 does not make any distinction with regard to the objectives of the Charitable and Religious purposes and the Trusts having both these objectives can also be registered under Section 11 or 12AA of the Act. Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the Assessee and upholding the registration of the Trust under Section 12AA read with Section 80G of the Act. The appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of any merits.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. BHAGAWAN MAHAVIR DIGAMBARA JAIN MANAGEMENT TRUST
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22431 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82876&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The fact that Clause 10 of the Trust Deed states that the fees and charges shall be fixed taking into account the cost of running including future development thereof though without an element of profit motive indicates that the actual intention of the trust is only to generate income by charging fees while admitting children’s to their schools.
M/S. RAJAH SIR ANNAMALAI CHETTIAR FOUNDATION, VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22348 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82812&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Petitioners stated in the grounds of appeal he has not raised the grounds now urged before this Court before the Appellate Authority. Therefore, it would only be appropriate that a direction is given to the petitioner to file the additional grounds now raised regarding the violation of principles of natural justice and a further direction is given to the CIT (appeals) to consider the same in the first instance and, if he finds that there is a violation of principles of natural justice, pass appropriate orders.
VIJIKUMAR AND ALAMELU CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1) , TIRUCHIRAPALLI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22316 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Here in the case in hand, the Assessee is entitled to seek exemption by way of deduction under Section 10B, since it is a 100% EOU, which is an admitted fact. In that capacity, the Assessee claimed exemption / deduction of a sum of ₹ 29,26,65,024/- from out of the profit and gain of the business which amounts to ₹ 30,82,27,633/-. Also it claimed unabsorbed brought forward depreciation allowances relating to AY 2001-02 to the extent of ₹ 1,55,62,609/-, thereby shown the taxable income as Nil in the Return submitted for the AY 2004- 05.
M/S. COMSTAR AUTOMATIVE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD., VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE - I (3), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22289 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82716&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Orders of this nature do not comply with the requirements that have been set out for disposal of stay applications. We had occasion to deal with a similar issue in the case of Mrs.Kannammal V. Income Tax Officer. The present matter as well, the impugned order does not deal with the aspects of prima facie case, financial stringency and balance of convenience. Hence, the impugned order is set aside.
GANAPATHY HARIDAASS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 4 (4), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22269 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82703&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Reaching the conclusion to confirm the order of the Assessing Officer, has also done its part by doing some research on Google Study. Admittedly, the research done by ITAT in the form of Google study was not put either to the appellant/assessee Company or to the said Revenue. As already pointed out by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, in the absence of any specific rule including the applicability of the natural justice, it is a well settled position of law that adherence to the principles of natural justice, is implied in any legislation.
M/S. RAMCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2 MADURAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22264 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82681&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled that if it is a charge for service rendered by the commercial agency and the amount of fee levied is based on the expenses incurred by the Government rendering the fee. Unlike the tax which is compulsory extraction of money, enforceable by law and not in return of any services rendered. The distinction between the tax and the fee is that tax is levied as a part of common burden while fee is payment for a special benefit of privilege. Fee confers some advantage and is a return of consideration for services rendered.
QATALYS SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, Q SOURCE GLOBAL CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED, JEANS PARK (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22245 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82647&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Addition cannot be made under Section 41(1) of the Act, since the liability of the assessee Bank to pay back the amounts to the customers in respect of such stale Demand Drafts and Pay Orders does not cease in law.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II TRICHIRAPALLI. VERSUS M/S. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21215 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82628&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
No return of income has been filed by OAS for the relevant assessment year. However, there are credits in the bank account that are liable to be explained by the entity for the purposes of determination of taxability.
M/S. OASYS GREEN TECH PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD – 5 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21208 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82615&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admitted position is that there is no shortfall as on date as confirmed by the officer, even though there was a shortfall, according to the Department, as on date of application before the SC. On an overall consideration of the matter, this is not a case where the assessee has consciously short-paid admitted tax. There are computational differences that exist that could well be the reason for the remittances falling short of the required amounts.
KRISHNA VENKATA RAMANA SHETTY VERSUS INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL BENCH, CHENNAI, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21207 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82616&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Procedure followed by the revenue in time barring assessments is that while the order may not be uploaded immediately, a DIN number is generated and the order of assessment sent manually. In the present case, the DIN number appears to have been issued on 28.12.2019 and the assessment order in hard copy issued on the same date franked by the post office on 30.12.2019 and served upon the assessee on 02.01.2020, (though returned) with the endorsement 'left'.
INDO LLOYD FREIGHT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD 2 (4), CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21205 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There is no question of law arising for consideration as the appeal is devoid of merits. Liberty is given to the Department to proceed against the trustees and committee members dealing with administration and the monies of the temple for the mismanagement and misappropriation leading to loss of public monies and the Government revenue, if any.
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS) VERSUS M/S. ARULMIGU DEVI KARUMARIAMMAN THIRUKOIL
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21189 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82559&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed on 19.02.2019 and till the issuance of the assessment notices dated 15.07.2019 under Section 153A of the Act, the petitioner did not challenge the order of transfer and there is no explanation for the delay in challenge.
V.V. MINERALS VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21174 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82554&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If ITSC decides against the assessee, holding that the contract was indivisible, there would be an additional tax liability upon the assessee, which demand can be raised only once a decision has been rendered in terms of Sec. 245D(4) on the issues posed before it, i.e., whether at all the income from offshore supply is liable to tax in India.
M/s.Hitachi Power Europe GmbH Vs Income tax Settlement Commission Additional
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21152 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 245D(2C)
-
The factual aspects of the affairs of the dissolved Company have to be gone into by the Assessing Officer and hence the learned Single Judge rightly remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer and issued directions as stated supra. Section 506(5) proviso (a) of the Companies Act and Chapter XV of the Income Tax Act which deals with liability in special cases and its clause (L) which deals with discontinuance of business or dissolution and these provisions provide as to how and in what manner the liability against such Company arising under the Companies Act and under the Income Tax Act is required to be dealt with.
KAMALA MUTHIAH AS THE ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR OF M/S. M. CT. M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (NOW DISSOLVED) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21149 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82503&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.