-
In the instant case, there was no allegation made against the assessee that the statement given by the assessee was either mala fide or lacks bona fide. There is no allegation against the assessee that he suppressed information to the Department with an intent to evade payment of tax. The details called for by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings were culled out from the books of the assessee.
SHRI KAMAL BASHA VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19634 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79123&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Tribunal holds that there is no clarity as to how the computation of depreciation has been made and it opined that the quantum of depreciation allowable to the assessee for the impugned assessment years requires a re-visit by the Assessing Officer.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, TUTICORIN. VERSUS M/S. V.O. CHIDAMBARANAR PORT TRUST, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. TUTICORIN PORT TRUST)
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19628 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79095&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Assessing Officer correctly after examining the facts of the case, found that the income earned from AMC (Annual Maintenance Charges of ATM), installation and technical charges, consultation charges and licence fee of software do not constitute income from the industrial undertaking which was established in Pondicherry, since this was not derived from the industrial undertaking, as the men, material and machinery of the Pondicherry industrial undertaking were not used to earn income and therefore, denied deduction under Section 80IA.
M/S. DIEBOLD SYSTEMS P. LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I (4), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19627 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79096&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Admittedly, the case on hand is not a case of survey, but it is a case where the assessee having come to know about the same, after the Assessing Officer pointed it out, immediately filed petition for rectification u/s 154 along with explanation stating that it is an inadvertent error.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. CELEBRITY FASHIONS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19626 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79098&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the instant case, the details were culled out from the books maintained by the assessee. The assessee, no doubt, did not offer convincing explanation before the AO, but raised a plea before the Tribunal that they are willing to produce all the names of their customers as well as their workers who can be examined. Tribunal was convinced with the stand taken by the assessee and therefore, granted an opportunity to the assessee to do so and called for a remand report.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL-III, MADRAS. VERSUS SHRI S.V. SREENIVASAN
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19620 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79088&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a reading of the assessment order dated 17.03.2015, it is evidently clear that books of accounts and all the details were furnished to the AOr which was perused by the AO and the case was discussed with the authorized representative of the assessee.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I VERSUS M/S. ANUGRAHA VALVE CASTINGS LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19619 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79086&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
On a perusal of the Assessment Order, the orders passed by CIT(A) and that of the Tribunal, we have no hesitation to hold that the two Authorities below and the Tribunal, proceeded on the legal principle without making an in-depth study on the facts situation.
M/S. INDIA METAL ONE STEEL PLATE PROCESSING PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 2 (2), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19618 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79085&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a litigant raises a legal issue before a court or a tribunal as a principal ground of challenge and without prejudice and not in derogation with the said plea, the litigant is also entitled to raise alternate submissions.
M/S. TATA TELESERVICES LTD. VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD II (5), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19617 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79090&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
NCLT only examines whether the scheme is a lawful contract and does not examine the scheme minutely with a tooth comb.
Dalmia Power Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19615 (HC-MADRAS)
-
It is seen that the assessee had shown the shares as investment in the books of account and there was no trading activities. Consequently, the Assessing Officer held that it cannot be allowed as deduction for the purpose of computing the profit of the assessee.
SMT. CHANDRA RAMESH VERSUS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I (1), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19611 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79061&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
From a plain reading of the provisions from 115O to 115QA, it is seen that Section 115 O is a charging section on its own.
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19594 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Sec. 271(1)(c) penalty levy in the hands of assessee-individual (a salaried employee),w.r.t treatment of gains arising on sale of stock appreciation rights(SARs) is deleted.
Shri.Soundarrajan Parthasarathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19591 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 271(1)(c)
-
Explanation (2)(iii) and (iv) to Section 115JB of the Act states that for the purposes of Clause (a) of Explanation 1 to Section 115JB of the Act, the amount of income tax shall include surcharge as levied by the Central Acts from time to time and education cess on income-tax, if any, as levied by the Central Acts from time to time.
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. SCOPE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19584 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79016&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
In the present case, buy-back of shares in accordance with Section 77A of the Companies Act was completed before 01.06.2013 and the Income Tax Returns filed by the petitioners were also accepted by the Assessing Officer, however notice un/s 143(2) dated 28.08.2015 and 31.08.2015 were issued and the impugned Draft Assessment Orders came to be passed on 31.12.2017, i.e., nearly about 2 1/2 years after initiation of the proceedings
COGNIZANT (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MS. HELEN RUBY JESINDHA
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19571 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79011&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
We are dealing with a case where it is a block assessment pursuant to a search and we are guided by the legal principles set out in the above mentioned decisions which clearly and consistently held that in the absence of any material found during the course of search regarding the undisclosed investment, the assessee cannot be penalized solely based on the valuation report provided by the Department.
SHRI BABU MANOHARAN VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I (3), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19566 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78999&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
This issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the revenue did not prefer any appeal against the said finding recorded by the CIT(A) in paragraph 5 and 6 of its order dated 30.06.2016. Therefore, the Revenue is not entitled to canvass the said contention before this Court. Accordingly, substantial question of law no.3 is rejected.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. RAMESH RAJAN CONSTRUCTION P LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19565 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79001&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The assessee was put in possession of the property in 1992 and was enjoying the property as that of an absolute owner except to fulfill the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale deed.
SOUTH INDIA MINERALS CORPORATION VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE XIV, CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19562 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78988&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
If a debt had become irrecoverable the same could be written off and deducted from the profit of the business. A debt, the recovery of which was doubtful could not be termed to be an ascertained liability as mentioned u/s 115J of the Act and could not be excluded from the book profits.
M/S. EID PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE - II (1) , CHENNAI, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - I, CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19561 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78990&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The agreement for sale should not be read in isolation, but should be read in conjoint with the power of attorney which in sum and substance is irrevocable.
SHRI C. SHRINIVASAN VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (2), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19560 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78991&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Dismisses writ petition citing appeal remedy, orders status quo on Cognizant's fixed deposits.
Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19555 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.