-
There had been no deliberate concealment nor there had been deliberate non disclosure and that the assessee disclosed the amount, which, according to the Department, should have been shown as a perquisite because the employer had treated it as a perquisite and deducted tax at source. Though the assessee offered an explanation, it was not found to be acceptable by the AO.
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-IX VERSUS SHRI. RAMESWARA REDDY KUMMATHI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19549 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78972&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
S. 254: Surprised that how, after so much of case laws on the issue and amendment of Rule 24 itself, the ld Members of the Tribunal, even now commit the folly of dismissing appeals for want of prosecution and for default of appearance on the part of the assessees. Dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution is not only illegal but also entails further litigation by compelling the assessee to move for setting aside the ex parte order. Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits. Copy of this judgment may be sent to the President of the ITAT & Law Secretary in Ministry of Law and Justice so that the same may be brought to the notice of all Members of the ITAT and new appointees in at the time of their recruitment itself. The President may also get it circulated to all existing Members of the ITAT so that such orders resulting in serious miscarriage of justice should not be repeated by any Member of the Tribunal
Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19540 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 254
-
The order dated 24.11.2015 passed by the DRP is an order reducing the variation proposed in the draft assessment order dated 25.02.2015. Thus, in our considered view, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the DRP exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order. In any event, the order passed by the DRP was not impugned before the Tribunal rather what was impugned was the assessment order dated 28.12.2015 passed under Section 144C(13) r/w Section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal was required to consider on merits whether the said assessment order was justified or not.
M/S. INDIA TRIMMINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE – 1, COIMBATORE.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19531 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78968&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
Since a flat is sold by company to a director-shareholder, therefore unpaid price of flat will be taxable as deemed dividend.
Bhagavathy Velan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19515 (HC-MADRAS)
-
When a just claim is put forth by a citizen, the State will not plead limitation to defeat it.
Karur Vysya Bank Limited vs. Pr. CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19514 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 264
-
HC - The statutory condition imposed for availment of the extended period of limitation has not been satisfied in the present case and as such, the proceedings for re-assessment for AY 2011-12 are barred by limitation.
Asianet Star Communications Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19475 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Non-intimation regarding assessee's death by legal representative, cannot invalidate AO's assessment orders.
V.Srinivasan Vs THE CIT
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19449 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 159
-
HC - Since new unit was not expansion of existing line of the business of the assessee and was new product line altogether, interest u/s 36(1)(iii) disallowed.
Tube Investments Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19324 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 36(1)(iii)
-
Since the requisite approval for the project on which expenditure was incurred by the Assessee was approved for the period prior and even subsequent to concerned AY. The said condition of approval stood substantially complied with.
TVS Electronics Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19279 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 35(2AB)
-
HC - Allotment of immovable property by assessee-firm to retiring partners towards their share in partnership on retirement is not transfer u/s 45(4).
National Company Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19231 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 45(4)
-
Upheld the ITAT's order invoking Section 62(2) r.w.Sec. 61(1) which would apply only to the Revocable Transfer of the funds made for a period which is not specified and these above circumstances, it would be taxable in the hands of the Transferor/beneficiaries and not in the hands of the Trust.
Tamilnadu Urban Development Fund Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19223 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Revised returns filed by assessee companies pursuant to NCLT approved amalgamation beyond the prescribed time limit u/s. 139(5) are valid.
Dalmia Power Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19215 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 139(5)
-
HC - Reassessment u/s 147 - Return filed by the petitioner was not taken up for scrutiny initially, and only an intimation under Section 143(1) has been issued, it is of the view that the assumption of jurisdiction in this case cannot be faulted, particularly since the respondent has, in the reasons for re-opening, cited tangible material upon which he rests his belief of escapement of income.
MR. DHIRAJ BHANSALI PARTNER, M/S. SHA RIKHABDAS MADAJI & CO VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 6 (3), CHENNAI
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19206 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78579&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Re-assessment u/s 147 -Assessing Authority cannot have a mere re-appreciation of the same facts or a review of existing material on a mere change of opinion and take a different view of the matter and he is not permitted to undertake the re-assessment proceedings. - limitation of 4 years is a protection of whimsical and arbitrary re-assessment proceedings.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VERSUS VISVAS PROMOTERS (P) LTD.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19205 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78580&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Provisions of Section 45(4) would not be attracted on the retirement of the two partners and consequential allotment of their share in the assets in the Assessee Firm.
M/S. NATIONAL COMPANY VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE – I [I/C] CHENNAI.
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19203 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78583&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - There was no reason for the Assessing Authority for not affording an opportunity to the Assessee to established the exemptions of Rule 6DD - Matter remanded.
MRS. R. THIRUVENGADAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, PONDICHERRY
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19182 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78556&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
The said order seems to be a cut and paste order, taking pieces from here and there and as if quoting some of the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts would be enough for the final fact finding body.
Sri K.Devakar Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19175 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Mortgage discharge in connection with property sale is not diversion at source but only application of income, therefore no deduction u/s. 48.
D.Zeenath Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19091 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 48
-
HC - Commencement of business - The petitioner’s activity, which it claims to be preliminary steps towards the fulfillment of the purpose, which is embodied in the MoU clearly indicates that it had set up its business and that these steps were for the ultimate fulfillment of its purposes, which was the preparation of development plans leading to the projects. - Expenses duly allowable.
INDIAN RAILWAY STATIONS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18057 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77303&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - 'Managerial remuneration' is taxable on 'accrual basis' in the hands of Managing Director in a Company even though the same not received.
Shri V.Ramakrishnan Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18023 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.