-
The object of Section 10(17A) is to reward an individual who has been recognized by the Centre or the State for rendition of services in public interest. While clause (i) is concerned with an award whether in cash or in kind, instituted in public interest by the Central or any State Government or instituted by any other body and approved by the Central Government in this behalf, clause (ii) refers to a reward by the Central or a State Government for such purposes as may be approved by the Central Government in this behalf in public interest.
K. VIJAYA KUMAR VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21141 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82496&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The income brought to tax u/s. 41 by reversal of the entry with regard to the stock option given to the employees is also in the nature of export income.
California Software Co., Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-I
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21134 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 10, 10B, 41
-
Section 119 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been incorporated to grant waiver from payment of interest in case of genuine hardship. Therefore, the Central Board of Direct Taxes has given power to issue instructions and direction to be followed while granting waiver of interest. This power is either exercised by the Board and/or by senior officers of the Income Tax Department like the first respondent.
TVL. SANMAC MOTOR FINANCE LTD. VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21125 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82470&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
As the petitioner was under a legal disability during the period between 18.06.2001 and 27.10.2006, during the subsistence of winding up order and since the petitioner company was under the control of this court and the official liquidator, I am of the view, this is a fit case for granting partial relief to the petitioner.
Tvl. Sanmac Motor Finance Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, ACIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21121 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 234A/B/C
-
To claim the benefit of Section 10B an assessee is required to file the returns by the due date prescribed u/s 139. In this case, the last date for filing the return fell on 30.9.2008 and 30.9.2009 respectively. However, the returns were filed by the petitioner belatedly on 7.1.2009 and 20.11.2009. By filing the returns belatedly, the petitioner did not gain anything. On the contrary, the petitioner risked losing the benefit of deduction under Section 10 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/S BEACH MINERALS COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21105 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82442&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Even though, the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the acquittal of the first respondent, it has observed that the wife of the first respondent has admitted that she has amassed the wealth by selling cycle rims and leather products without any bill and out of money amassed by her, she had persuaded her husband to deposit the same in various banks. She has also admitted that the recovered seized assets belong to her. Whether she has been prosecuted for the above non-disclosure or not is not brought before this Court.
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, THE INCOME – TAX OFFICER, CHENNAI VERSUS K. INBASAGARAN, M/S. SILVER SHOES PVT. LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21104 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82444&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The process of converting raw Urad into Urad Dhal is a manufacturing activity undertaken by the Assessee and therefore, the Assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80IA of the Act.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS SMT. S. MAHALAKSHMI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21076 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82212&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Process which the assessee had undertaken satisfies the test of manufacture to qualify for relief under Section 10B. Apart from cleaning and grading, the assessee had taken further processing, that what is purchased as raw material and what is exported as a product for export are totally different items. The process that the assessee had undertaken clearly points out the irreversible nature of the final end product from a raw material purchased.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARD XIII (2), CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S DECO DE TREND
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21073 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82216&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 143(3): While E-Assessment without human interaction is laudable, such proceedings can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing. Assessment proceeding under the changed scenario would require proper determination of facts by proper exchange and flow of correspondence between the assessee and the AO. The AO should at least call for an explanation in writing before proceeding to conclude that the amount collected by the assessee was unusual. Also, since the assessment proceedings no longer involve human interaction and is based on records alone, the assessment proceeding should have commenced much earlier so that before passing assessment order, the AO could have come to a definite conclusion on facts after fully understanding the nature of business of the assessee.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company vs. DCIT
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21068 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 143(3)
-
Electronic assessment proceedings, though laudable, can lead to erroneous assessment if officers are not able to understand the transactions and statement of accounts of an assessee without a personal hearing.
Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21062 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 69A
-
In the present case, it is not as if amounts were not paid under the JV agreement or amounts due were written off by the petitioner. The petitioner however claimed higher business loss and the depreciation loss during the assessment years 1988-89 to 1990-91 as the amount was not paid by the developer in time as per the JV agreement dated 30.8.1986.
M/S. RAYALA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21050 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82178&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The question of making protective demand based on the assessment of the person who paid the amount the petitioner appears to be incorrect as assessment cannot be made subject to outcome of collateral proceedings of another person. Assessment has to be completed based on the accounts of the petitioner. It cannot be left open ended as has been done in the case of the petitioner.
CBI INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I (2), TIRUPUR
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21049 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82183&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Single Judge ought to have upheld the objection of the Revenue and relegated the Assessee to the regular Appellate remedy available to the Assessee against the impugned Reassessment Order under Section 147/148 of the Act for the Assessment year 2008-09. Assesseealso fairly submitted before us that even at this stage, the Assessee may be allowed to avail his remedy by way of appeal before the First Appellate Authority viz., CIT (Appeals), to which the learned Counsel for Revenue Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan also does not have a serious objection.
THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 VERSUS S.M. KUTUBUDDIN
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21024 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82121&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings of facts are rendered by the learned Tribunal upholding the findings of the two Authorities below and thus, all the three Authorities have concurrently held against the Assessee that only for want of production of relevant evidence by the Assessee, the Authorities below came to the conclusion that the expenses incurred by the Assessee on various items as well as the contribution made to Lady Ampthil Hospital were not allowable expenses.
M/S. ATOFINA PEROXIDES INDIA LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21023 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82123&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is well settled that it is not necessary that there must be mathematical precision between the fee paid and service rendered. All that is necessary is a reasonable relationship between fee charged and the services rendered. A burden of fee for an additional exercise by the revenue compels the assessee to exercise promptitude or otherwise pay an additional fee. The legislature intent is not to arbitrarily burden the assessee by realising something extra but to call upon the assessee to share the burden of extra exercise due to delay on his part.
K. NIRAI MATHI AZHAGAN VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21004 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82058&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec.234F fee is levied against the privilege granted to allow late filing of return and is levied to ensure proper and timely filing of return.
K.Nirai Mathi Azhagan Vs The Union of India, Central Board of Direct Taxes
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21002 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 234F
-
Government of India demonetized ₹ 500 and ₹ 1000 notes on 08.11.2016. Between 01.11.2016 and 08.11.2016, the petitioner had collected a sum of ₹ 57,85,655/-which is also does not appear to be usual as compared to collections made during the November 2015. Out of the total collection of ₹ 57,85,655/-and a closing cash of ₹ 38,72,374/- as on 31.10.2016, the petitioner deposited an amount of ₹ 26,77,716/- which is also not in variance with the cash deposits made by the petitioner during the preceding financial year.
SALEM SREE RAMAVILAS CHIT COMPANY, PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 (1), INCOME TAX OFFICE, NO. 3, GANDHI ROAD, SALEM
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20992 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82042&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant cases, the tax effect is said to be less than the monetary limit imposed and therefore, the Appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed, as withdrawn, keeping open the substantial questions of law for determination in appropriate cases.
Shri.R.Rajinikanth Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20985 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The provision made by the Assessee for 'Site Restoration cost' under the contractual obligations, made on scientific basis was clearly an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.
Vedanta Limited Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20984 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 37
-
It is not even in dispute that all the exclusive and main source of income of the Assessee was only the rentals and lease money received from the lessees in both the cases and the Assessing Authority took a different and contrary view mainly to deny the claim of depreciation out of such business income in the form of rentals, without assigning any proper and cogent reason.
M/S. PSTS HEAVY LIFT AND SHIFT LTD., M/S. CEEDEEYES IT PARKS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE - V (2) CHENNAI.,
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20973 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82029&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.