-
HC - No penalty u/s 271D where loan in cash was taken from near relatives and there is nothing on record to show that the transaction lacks bona fides.
MS. NANDA KUMARI VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 1 (4) , CHENNAI-34
(2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 16425 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=75164&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Prosecution u/s. 276C(2) for non-payment of determined tax was not valid since assessee was agitating his case before CIT(A) / ITAT.
Sayarmull Surana Vs The Income Tax Officer
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16291 (HC-MADRAS)
-
Entire law on whether complaint and sanction for prosecution of offenses can be quashed as being without proper application of mind explained in the context of s. 55 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 (All judgements on the subject of prosecution of offenses discussed)
Srinidhi Karti Chidambaram vs. PCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16108 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 55
-
HC - Failure to consider trust's application for registration within 6 months would be treated as deemed grant of registration and to be effective from date of expiry of 6 months from application date.
TBI EDUCATION TRUST Vs THE COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16041 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Payment to the Austrian company for design of cylinder for improvement of fuel efficiency is not royalty, but FTS and taxable only in Austria, as per provisions of India-Austria DTAA.
TVS Motors Co Ltd Vs The Director of International Taxation
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16040 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Employees' contribution to PF / ESI deposited beyond respective due date but before due date of filing ROI is not allowable deduction.
M/s. Unifac Management Services (India) Private Ltd. Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporation Circle 3(2)
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16029 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - ITAT order remanding the matter to CIT(A) in respect of nature of non compete fee received not valid as there was no sufficient material before the Tribunal to remand the case for a fresh consideration at the first instance.
K. RAJIV VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-3, CHENNAI
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15727 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=74132&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Assessee’s claim of refund of entire tax paid in view of block assessment annulment is not valid.
Dr.Thirupathy Reddy (HUF) Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15700 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Sec. 80IA deduction available on interest earned on FD kept with the bank as margin money for taking ‘foreign Letter of Credit’.
Arul Mariammal Textiles Ltd vs. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15693 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 80-IA
-
S. 159/ 292B: There is no obligation on the part of the legal representatives of a deceased assessee to intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration. A notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable in law. The fact that the Revenue had no knowledge about the death of the assessee does not change the law. The defect is fatal and is not curable u/s 292B. The legal representatives are liable u/s 159 only if proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and are continued against the legal heirs
Alamelu Veerappan vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15638 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 159, 292B
-
S. 68: If no cash is involved in the transaction of allotment of shares and it is a case of book adjustment, provisions of s. 68 treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Even if it were to be assumed that the subscribers to the increased share capital are not genuine, the amount of share capital would in no circumstances be regard as undisclosed income of the company
V. R. Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15603 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 68
-
HC - Eexpenses incurred on abandoned project even from capital account is revenue in nature as the venture did not fructify.
Tamilnadu Magnesite Ltd. ACIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15255 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - AO is required to pass speaking order to dispose off assessee’s objections to re-opening proceedings u/s 147 in view of the directions of SC.
K. Velayutham Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15240 (HC-MADRAS)
-
S. 263 Revision (show-cause notice): A Writ Petition to challenge a s. 263 notice is maintainable if the authority issuing the show-cause notice lacks jurisdiction and if the notice is clearly barred by law. As per Alagendran Finance 162 Taxman 465 (SC), the two year limitation period stipulated u/s 263(2) runs from the date of the original assessment and not from the date of reassessment when the s. 263 notice deals with issues which are not subject matter of reassessment proceedings (MAK Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) & Malabar Industrial Co 243 ITR 83 (SC) distinguished)
M/s. Indira Industries vs. PCIT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15230 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 263
-
HC - Writ allowed - Merely because the Department was not intimated about the death of the assessee, that cannot, by itself, extend the period of limitation u/s 148 prescribed under the Statute.
Alamelu Veerappan Vs. ITO
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15192 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC- Writ Allowed - Delay in filing return owing to the delay in carrying out tax audit is to be condoned.
REGEN Powertech Private Ltd. Vs. CBDT
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14641 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - When the employer abroad had paid the interest u/s 201(1A) for not deducting tax at source, then employee is not liable for interest u/s 234B.
John Baptist Lasrado vs. ITSC
(2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 14213 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 234B
-
HC - Opportunity of hearing under Sec 263 proceedings explained. Even though there is no requirement in law to issue a notice u/s. 263, but, once, the DIT chooses to issue, he should specify as to why the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.
Cairn India Ltd. vs. DIT
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13803 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 263
-
HC - To state that the partial stay granted by the Supreme Court would enure to the benefit of the petitioner even for filing income tax returns without AADHAAR is a plea, which is not sustainable and is liable to be rejected.
Mr. Thiagarajan Kumararaja Versus Union of India, The Central Board of Direct Taxes, The Income Tax Officer
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13798 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=70294&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Dismissed - No permission for filing income- tax return without Aadhaar number.
Mr. Thiagarajan Kumararaja Vs. Union of India
(2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13793 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.