-
As recorded in the books, no question of law arises in the present case, much less substantial question of law, giving rise to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 260A, by the Assessee. The admission on the part of the Assessee was the best evidence to be used by the Assessing Authority in the present case.
MR. SUJITH CHERIAN, PROP. KERALA FASHION JEWELLERY CHENNAI 4. VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE II
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20963 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82001&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The amount which has been made liable to tax in the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 was subject matter of discussion with the respondent prior to passing of the impugned notice dated 31.03.2016 vide communications exchanged pursuant to letter dated 05.02.2014 seeking clarification from the petitioner.
MRS. HEMALATHA RAMAIAH VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 3, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20955 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81992&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case the petitioner has, no doubt obtained a PAN from the Assessing Officer at Madurai, wherein the dress of the assessee is stated to be in Madurai. However, no assessments have been completed by the officials at Madurai, till date. For AY 2012-2013 to 2015-2016 the petitioner has filed returns of income electronically, stipulating his jurisdictional officer as the Income tax officer, Shimoga, Karnataka.
ABDUL AZEEZ HAROON VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, MADURAI.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20951 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81987&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax-II Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works Ltd., Coimbatore for purposes of according sanction to a scheme of amalgamation of a sick industrial undertaking with any other company under Section 18 of the said Act, the BIFR has to be satisfied that the amalgamating company is not financially viable, which is the effect of Section 3(o) of the said Act, and that the amalgamation is necessary or expedient in the public interest, which is the effect of Sections 17 and 18 of the said Act read together.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II COIMBATORE. VERSUS M/S. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS LTD.
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20950 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81989&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this case, the amount paid by the petitioner’s employer alone has been refunded back without interest vide 1st mentioned impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 5.10.2012. There is however no discussion as to why the interest under Section 244A was not payable to the petitioner.
P.R. GANAPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – II (5)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20852 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81845&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The petitioner is justified in asking for interest on delayed refund of tax that was paid by his employer which has been held to be not payable by the employer. Once there is a refund and if there is a delay, interest is payable by the employer. There is no basis for denying interest on such delayed refund of the amounts.
P.R.Ganapathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20817 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 244A
-
In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, not defaulted in the filing of a return of income. Thus, the only condition to be satisfied by the revenue would be the establishment of the fact that there has been a failure by the assessee to make a full and true disclosure of material particulars. Adverting to paragraph 8 of this order setting out the reasons for re-assessment, I note that items (i) and (ii), have, admittedly, been considered by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his order under Section 263 dated 26.03.2010.
M/S. MOHAN BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES LTD. VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20764 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81788&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The grant of approval would only require a satisfaction of the Officer in regard to the existence of the University and the avowed objects. The question of whether the Society has, in fact, complied with the statutory provisions strictly is a matter of assessment and would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment itself. Respondent has, in the impugned orders adopted a view that is premature and Writ Petitions are allowed.
HINDUSTAN ENGINEERING TRAINING CENTRE, HINDUSTAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -III, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20763 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81789&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is for the Court to declare what a particular provision of the Statute states and not go by what the Executive has or has not stated. The procedure set out under Section 144C is a mandatory procedure and thus, in any case where the said procedure has not been complied with by the Assessing Authority, such assessment would be liable to be set aside.
M/S. VEDANTA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V (4), COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -III, CHENNAI
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20755 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81782&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is really no necessity to examine the relevant provisions of law or the merits of the claims of the petitioners since there is a more fundamental aspect of the matter that appeals, the gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Apart from the fact that the two orders of assessment are entirely identical, word to word, except for the differences in the figures in the computation, there is nothing in the order itself to indicate that the petitioners have been put to notice of the proposals for assessment prior to finalization thereof and this aspect of the matter is really not disputed or contested by the revenue.
M/S. MEDICAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION, M/S. VISION RESEARCH FOUNDATION VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)
(2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 20754 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81783&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Provision for Bad and Doubtful Debt was clearly a deductible amount for the purpose of Section 115JA of the Act. This position of law was undone only by the Finance Amendment Act, 2009 with retrospective effect from 1 April 2001. But the fact remains that the said amendment in law was effected in the year 2009 and it was not available on the date when the reassessment notice was issued in the present case on 31 March 2008.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20720 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=81734&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Exemption u/s. 10(15)(f) on foreign currency loan - Even if the loan taken as working capital loan from M/s.Raghava Enterprises Limited earlier and employed by the assessee for such industrial development and the foreign currency loan in question was utilised to repay the loan to M/s.Raghava, the exemption given by the Ministry of Finance in favour of the Assessee cannot be said to have been lost by such facts.
Seven Seas Distillery (Pvt.) Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20609 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10(15)(f)
-
HC - Assessing Officer is not justified in reopening the assessment in the absence of failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose the material fact.
Scientific Publishing Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20604 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 10B
-
The Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notices.
Mohan Ravi Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20578 (HC-MADRAS)
-
In order to avoid the 'pitfall', law officers need to bring to the notice of their respective heads rulings which meet the criteria laid down by Lindley - 1.it must introduce a new principle, 2.modify an existing principle, 3.settle a disputed or uncertain issue, 4.or particularly instructive, and states that such a sharing of knowledge will definitely go a long way in improving the quality of adjudication.
City Union Bank Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20503 (HC-MADRAS)
-
If the assessee satisfies that the amount for which deduction is sought for u/s. 54 is utilised either for purchasing or constructing the residential house in India within the time prescribed u/s. 54(1), the deduction is bound to be granted without reference to Section 54(2).
Venkata Dilip Kumar Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20441 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections 54(1), 54(2)
-
Revenue is not justified in relying upon Section 132B to retain the asset, when admittedly, as on date there are no arrears of tax due from the petitioner and that the assessment for 2013-14 is not yet completed and the liability is arrived.
Padam J.Challani Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20409 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 132B
-
Advance given by a company to another company in ordinary course of business is not deemed dividend for assessee-individual holding more than 20% shares in both the companies. As long as the dividend is referred to in Sec.115-O, it will be exempted from tax u/s 10(34). If Section 10 (34) stipulates that dividend is not taxable, the Settlement Commission cannot tax the same.
R Chitra Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20403 (HC-MADRAS)
-
There was no bar in granting registration to trust, even if the trust has both charitable as well as religious objects no error in the order passed by the Tribunal.
DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. ALPHA INDIA FOUNDATION
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20143 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79976&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254: We express our pain and anxiety. The Tribunal ought not to have recorded any such concession on the part of the AR contrary to the written submissions. There is no justification on the part of the ld. Members of the Tribunal to record any such concession on behalf of the assessee. In future, if any such concession is made by any AR on behalf of the assessees, the Tribunal should take either an Affidavit or at least a written endorsement made on the record of the case duly signed by them, so that no such occasion of taking a stand contra to the alleged concession, would arise before higher Courts
V. Ramesh vs. ACIT (Madras High Court)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20131 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.