-
The above claim made by the petitioner for refund of the sum is not disputed by the respondents and on the other hand, the respondents seek four weeks time to refund the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by recording the above stand taken by the respondents, also with further direction to the respondents to refund the said sum along with appropriate interest within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
M/S. NARAYANAN CHETTIAR INDUSTRIES VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20125 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79957&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Local Committee, after considering the complaint filed by the petitioner, formed an opinion that the assessments for the subject matter Assessment Years cannot be termed as high pitched. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, the mechanism provided to approach the Local Committee is not in lieu of the appellate remedy.
CARUNA BAL VIKAS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA, CHAIRMAN C&S, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LOCAL COMMITTEE TO DEAL WITH TAX PAYERS GRIEVANCES FROM HIGH PITCHED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20082 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79875&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
There is no allegation against the assessee before us that they had concealed particulars of their income. However, the allegation is inaccurate particulars have been furnished. AO while completing the assessment vide order dated 01.12.2011, does not record any finding that the particulars given by the assessee in the return of income is incorrect or inaccurate, but the conclusion of the AO is based upon an interpretation of the legal position and held that tax is payable under Section 115JB.
M/S. VINAY AUTOPARTS P. LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD 3 (1) , 121, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20070 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79868&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This court after a careful analyse of rival submissions and the case law is convinced that the submission of learned Revenue counsel that Southern Petrochemical case is distinguishable deserves to be accepted for more than one reason, as Southern Petrochemical case turns on section 144B which is different from section 144C which we are now concerned with, more importantly the facts scenario is completely different.
WORLDPART LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20057 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79848&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The findings rendered cannot be termed as prima facie as they were not mere observations the learned single Judge was not right in going to the merit while granting liberty to file an appeal. As and when such an appeal is filed, the same will have to be disposed of within a period of eight weeks thereafter.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20048 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It is not the case of the Department that this Court had stayed the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, as well as the Tribunal in the Tax Case Appeals. Just because the order reducing the penalty has been put under challenge in the Tax Case Appeals, it cannot be said that the order reducing the penalty itself has been kept under abeyance. In this background, it can only be said that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of Section 279 (1A) of the Act and the mere challenge to the order reducing the penalty may not suffice to deny such a benefit.
K.M. MAMMEN VERSUS THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) , THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CCA) , THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19984 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79765&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The transactions involving lowering/splitting of share consideration as also the non-compete fee received by the assessee[engaged in the brewery business] is a device adopted to evade taxes
M P Purushothaman Vs Commissioner of Income Tax VII
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19971 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in dismissing the appeals for non prosecution is no longer res integra. Hence the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal only on the ground of non prosecution without adverting to the merits of the matter.
THE GOVERNMENT TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., CHENNAI-1 VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12 (3), CHENNAI-34.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19954 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79737&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The will has to be read in its entirety and not in bits & pieces as done by the revenue to understand the intention of the testator. The testator did not bequeath the property but bequeathed part of the sale consideration.
Kumar Rajaram Vs The ITO
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19951 (HC-MADRAS)
-
A perusal of provision i.e., Section 264 reveals that said Revisional Authority has powers to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order and said Revisional Authority has powers which includes powers to make orders which are not prejudicial to the assessee. Therefore, it is clear that u/s 264 writ petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of a statutory revision u/s 264 to said Revisional Authority.
B. MURALIDHAR VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAX RECOVERY OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19948 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79724&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy making it clear that all questions raised by the writ petitioner including questions pertaining to cross-examination can be raised by the writ petitioner before CIT-A and the issue of whether the cash was rerouted to the writ petitioner being a factual dispute can also be gone into by CIT-A for taking a decision on writ petitioner's request for cross-examination.
M/S. MARINA SHIP BROKERS VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19947 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79725&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The extensive repairs and renovations carried out by the assessee cannot be said to be incurred to preserve and maintain an already existing asset since many new objects have been brought into as could be seen from the list of construction made and thus, the object of expenditure made by the assessee is definitely to bring a new asset into existence to obtain new advantage further giving enduring benefit to the assessee.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. E.T.A. TRAVEL AGENCY (P) LTD., CHENNAI-4.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19905 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79642&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The scope of the Act will apply to any Central Act or Regulation and also to the Constitutions, as it is the Rule of interpretation which has been made applicable to the Constitution in the same manner as it applied to any Central Act or Regulation.
SHRI SUBASH CHAND JAIN VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD – I (2), SALEM – 7
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19901 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79646&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee trust was required to dispose or convert the assets not conforming to the requirement of Section 11(5) into permissible investment within one year from the end of the financial year in which such bonus shares or other assets are received or 31.03.1992 whichever is later and also held that the income over expenditure derived by the assessee during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02 is assessable at the maximum marginal rate.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. KSHETROPASANA GOKULDHAM
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19894 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79628&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
While it is clear that relevant provision relied on by learned counsel for writ petitioner talks only about first appeal to the first appellate authority, the order of ITAT and stops with the same, there is another provision which deals with a scenario which does not fall in such a factual setting.
S. AJIT KUMAR VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-20 (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19891 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79632&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The finding rendered by the Tribunal that the price for which the shares were agreed to be sold is a justified reasonable price is a finding not supported by any document and therefore, perverse.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VII, CHENNAI. VERSUS MP PURUSHOTHAMAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19886 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79608&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
CIT while issuing the show cause notice did not rely upon any independent material nor on any interpretation of law but on perusal of the records was of the view that the expenditure cannot be allowed as deduction.
KUMAR RAJARAM VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION - 2 (1) , CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19885 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79609&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
It was the first time, the Government of India took a decision to permit foreign insurance companies to set up general insurance business in India. The entire matter was regulated by the Government of India under the relevant regulations.
M/S. SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE VI (4) , CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19867 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79597&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Contention of the writ petitioner's counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that Section 2(14)(iii)(b) contemplates calculating distance of the land in question from the nearest municipality.
FRANCIS MARIA SELVARAJ VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19866 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79598&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
the entire capital and assets of the transferor-companies having vested in the assessee, as a result of the said amalgamations, the assessee became the sole owner of the capital of the transferor-companies. There was, therefore, no extinguishment of the right of the assessee in participating in the capital on the liquidation of the transferor-companies.
M/S. L.G. BALAKRISHNAN & BROS LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE-II COIMBATORE
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19865 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79599&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.