-
the premises where the employees were housed, for which, they paid rental the company were in the near vicinity of the mills, that the rental of those premises were fixed and did not change with the change of the occupant, that the rental deducted from the wages of the employee or employees occupying the premises, that those employees were engaged in the main business of the company and their residence in the buildings in dispute was incidental to the main occupation i.e. the carrying on of the business of the company and that in true perspective, those buildings were part of the business equipment of the owner or in other words, it was the business asset of the owner.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. ASHOK LEYLAND LTD., CHENNAI-1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19864 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79600&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Situations wherein returns are filed post demise of the assessee by legal heir are common situations and therefore it is for the Income Tax Department to update data software to make allowance for such situations.
T Palani Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19847 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 292-B
-
When there was no writing off of liabilities and only the sub-head, under which, the liability was shown in the account books of the assessee was changed, there could be no cessation of liability.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT CORPORATION (CHENNAI) LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19821 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79474&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly when there was no assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and the fact that the assessee has separately filed Form No.10 along with the Board Resolution, along with the covering letter dated 01.04.2009, it is a fit case where the assessing officer should be directed to take note of Form No.10 accompanied by the Board Resolution and take a decision on merits.
SHRI CHANDRAPRABHUJI MAHARAJ JAIN JUNA MANDIR RUST VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) -II, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19803 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79466&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The embezzlement by one of the Directors or an employee of the business of the Assessee Company during the ordinary course of business can be a business loss of the Assessee irrespective of criminal prosecution of the accused director/employee of the Company.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. SARAVANA SELVARATHNAM TRADING & MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19733 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79318&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We find some force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue. Since the Appellant died and his legal representatives are not available to argue the present Appeal or to engage a Counsel to appear in the matter, we dismiss the present Appeal as having abated with a liberty to the legal representatives to revive the said Appeal with proper Application in case, they consider it appropriate.
K.Y. GAITONDE VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY CIRCLE VII (1) CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19732 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79319&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, we find that on objections being filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections and passed an order on 10.11.2017. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the validity of the reopening and not rejected the appeal on the ground that the authorized representative of the assessee participated in response to the notice issued u/s 148.
SMT. NEETAA SUNEEL SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19731 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79320&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In our considered view, there are only two methods of dealing such a situation. Firstly, if the decision is per incurium, a finding to the said effect has to be given. Secondly, the Court or the Tribunal can refuse to follow the decision by distinguishing it on the factual matrix.
SARVODAYA MUTUAL BENEFIT TRUST, THELLAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19725 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79308&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In this appeal, we are concerned about the assessment year 2004-05. Therefore, the circular of the CBDT dated 09.10.1984, should not have been applied, as by then the statutory direction issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 31.01.1998 was in vogue and held the field.
THE KUMBAKONAM MUTUAL BENEFIT FUND LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, KUMBAKONAM, TAMILNADU.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19724 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79309&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a particular article would fall within the description by the force of the words used, it is impermissible to ignore the word 'description' and going by the usage of the equipment purchased by the assessee, a decision has to be arrived at.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19723 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79310&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Language employed in Section 147 does not make any distinction between an order passed under Section 143(3) and the intimation issued under Section 143(1) and therefore, it is not permissible to adopt different standards while interpreting the words “reason to believe” vis-a-vis Section 143(1) and Section 143(3).
M/S. TENZING MATCH WORKS VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE I, VIRUDHUNAGAR.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19707 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79280&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the decision in the case of L.VE.Vairavan Chettiar [1965 (4) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] the Court found that there was nothing to show that the business had been abandoned and the assessee was continued to incur expenditure and it would come up and the business would be successful. In the said factual background, the Court held that the resultant loss being business loss is deductible.
M/S. MEC INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19701 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79232&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
To be noted that the power under Section 254(2) of the Act is a power given to rectify errors. The scope of the said power is no longer res integra and by now, is well settled.
DAIMLER INDIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (P) LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19676 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79204&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a reading of Explanation (2) to Section 9(1)(vii), fees for technical services means consideration, including lumpsum consideration for rendering any managerial, technical or consultancy services.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, CHENNAI-34 VERSUS M/S. MPS LTD., CHENNAI-32
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19665 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79200&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The benefit which accrued to the assessee not only in the AY under consideration, but also the earlier AY has been taken away by the Tribunal.
Daimler India Commercial Vehicles (P) Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19661 (HC-MADRAS)
-
The assessee's own case for the assessment year 2003-04, three substantial questions of law raised in this appeal were considered and they were decided against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. While allowing the expenditure on Research & Development, after analysing the facts of assessee.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. TVS MOTORS LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19654 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79191&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal, we find that what weighed in the mind of the Tribunal is primarily because the quantum assessment had attained finality and that the assessee had not challenged the said assessment. This, in our considered view, is an incorrect interpretation because both the quantum assessment as well as the penalty proceedings are independent of each other.
R. REVATHY VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI CENTRAL-I, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19650 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79179&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Notice was issued u/s 148 on the ground that the holding company ceased to hold whole of the share capital of the subsidiary company, the exemption granted has to be withdrawn as per provision of Section 47A. The original sale of the textile unit has to be treated as transfer and net worth has to be subjected to capital gains treating this transactions as a slump sales as per provisions of Section 50B.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -I, COIMBATORE. VERSUS M/S. SHIVA DISTILLERIES LIMITED
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19649 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79180&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Expenditure incurred in respect of renovation of leased premises is to be treated as capital in nature.
E.T.A. Travel Agency (P) Ltd Vs The Commissioner of IncomeTax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19637 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 32
-
We find that both in the first order of rejection dated 24.06.2013 and second order of rejection dated 06.05.2016. The only reason assigned by the CCIT is by stating that the trust deed does not specifically mention that the educational institution established by it, is not running for the purpose of profit.
M/S PKD TRUST VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (2) /WARD 1 (1), POLLACHI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19635 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79120&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.