Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Madras High Court — Direct Tax

614 rulings

  1. Madras High Court · 10 Apr 2019
    HC - Power of Tribunal to dismiss the Appeals for want of prosecution - Tribunal seems to have been contended by dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution only and not touching the merits of the case at all and then further erred in dismissing the Miscellaneous Petition filed for recalling the ex parte order dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution.

    SMT. RITHA SABAPATHY VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, CHENNAI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18015 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77248&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Madras High Court · 10 Apr 2019
    HC - Admission made by the Assessee in the statements recorded u/s 132 (4) was merely to the extent of payment of Capitation Fee and nothing about the source of such payment was disclosed, it does not mean that it could result in an addition ipso facto as Undisclosed Income without the corroborating material.

    SHRI R. BHOOPATHY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 18013 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77252&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Madras High Court · 04 Apr 2019
    HC - No challenge of reassessment in first round in clear terms before the authorities below is fatal and cannot be permitted to raise subsequently as an after-thought.

    M/S. VIGNESWAR TEX VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (3), TIRUPUR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17970 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77180&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  4. Madras High Court · 04 Apr 2019
    HC - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Substantial question of law - The matter of explanation furnished by the assessee being accepted by the Tribunal or not, is a fact finding exercise and unless the findings of the Tribunal can be held to be perverse, no substantial question of law arises.

    M/S. AMUTHAM ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COIMBATORE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17968 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77184&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Madras High Court · 27 Mar 2019
    HC - The manufacture of a herbal product by a manual process with the use of some chemicals and small machinery (but least consumption of electricity) can also amount to manufacture or production of a different commercial article which is the basic requirement under Section 80IA.

    COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHENNAI VERSUS M/S. CAVINKARE PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 17905 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=77098&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  6. Madras High Court · 26 Mar 2019
    HC - In case of proceedings u/s 158BD, not raising any objection in the first instance by the Assessee is fatal.

    SMT. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16904 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76101&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Madras High Court · 25 Mar 2019
    HC - Disallowance u/s 40(A) - It cannot be contended that merely because there was an Agreement between the Assessee Company and the partnership firm, the Research and Advisory fees made by the Company to the partnership firm, in which one of the Directors had a substantial interest, ought to be allowed wholly or partly as a business expenditure.

    M/S. PATTERSON & CO PVT. LIMITED. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V (1) CHENNAI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16898 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76072&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Madras High Court · 25 Mar 2019
    HC - On the admission of the Assessee himself that money was his own undisclosed income brought back in the country through alleged NRI gifts was the best evidence and was sufficient to bring it to tax in the hands of the Assessee.

    M/S. SWATHI ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE (2) CHENNAI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16897 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76073&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Madras High Court · 23 Mar 2019
    S. 220(6) Stay of Demand: The ‘trinity’ of prima facie case, financial stringency & balance of convenience are basic tents which are indispensable in consideration of a stay petition. The CBDT's Circulars & Instructions are in the nature of guidelines & cannot substitute or override the basic tenets. The AO is required to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way. Even if the assessee has not specifically invoked the three parameters for grant of stay, it is incumbent upon the AO to do so & pass a speaking order

    Mrs. Kannammal, Jayanthi Seeman vs. ITO, PCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16892 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 220(6)

  10. Madras High Court · 22 Mar 2019
    HC - In case of JDA, capital gains on property transferred by the land owner would accrue in the year in which approval was received from development authority and not in year in which license was given to the developer.

    Shri.R.J.V.Kaiwar Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16886 (HC-MADRAS)

  11. Madras High Court · 22 Mar 2019
    HC - Interest under hire purchase to be recognised on EMI basis and not on Sum of Digit basis based on books of accounts.

    M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16885 (HC-MADRAS)

  12. Madras High Court · 22 Mar 2019
    HC - Reopening quashed since two alleged lacunae or irregularities could not be a sufficient reason for issuing a repeat (2nd) Notice u/s 148.

    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS GAY TRAVELS (P) LIMITED

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16879 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76041&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Madras High Court · 21 Mar 2019
    HC - The application of Sec. 192 relating to TDS provisions, is 'uniform' and not affected by 'religious character' of the recipient of income.

    The Society of Mary Immaculate (Tamil Nadu) Vs Union of India

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16874 (HC-MADRAS)

  14. Madras High Court · 20 Mar 2019
    HC - Income-tax Department should consider taking action against colleges on account of capitation fees paid by assessee-parent, instead of punishing parents.

    Shri R.Bhoopathy Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16873 (HC-MADRAS)

  15. Madras High Court · 13 Mar 2019
    HC - The Assessee cannot be denied an opportunity to raise his objections even against the presumptive Fair Market Value under Section 50C (1) or Report of DVO under Section 50C (2).

    M/S. JAGANNATHAN SAILAJA CHITTA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16809 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75945&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Madras High Court · 05 Mar 2019
    HC - Contribution made by the employer to the Death Relief Fund is also an allowable business expenditure in terms Section 37 in so far as the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the welfare of its employees and is for the purposes of the business.

    M/S. MADURA COATS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16755 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75861&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Madras High Court · 28 Feb 2019
    HC - The existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of convenience are relevant factors while while exercising discretion in stay matters.

    Mrs.Kannammal Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16724 (HC-MADRAS)

  18. Madras High Court · 27 Feb 2019
    S. 276C Prosecution: Prosecution should not be launched hurriedly by the Dept during the pendency of case before the ITAT. The law of limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C. for criminal prosecution has been excluded by the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 & so there is no need for hasty action. Meaning of "wilful attempt to evade tax" explained (All imp judgements referred).

    Sayarmull Surana vs. ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16709 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 276C

  19. Madras High Court · 14 Feb 2019
    HC - Determination of agricultural land sold - Though the certificate from Tehsildar may state that there is no cultivation carried on the lands as per the land records, but there is nothing on record to show that the land in question was put to use for any non-agricultural purposes. Assessee has also paid taxes. Land sold agricultural in nature.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI VERSUS P. ASHOK KUMAR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16634 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75492&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Madras High Court · 11 Jan 2019
    HC - Length of delay alone is not always the criteria to reject an appeal. There is nothing on record brought by the Revenue to show that the appellant had purposely and willfully delayed in filing the appeal. Delay condoned.

    M/S. RATTHA HOLDINGS COMPANY PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16445 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75217&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.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.