-
HC - Assessee’s case fell within one of the conditions stipulated u/s 119(2)(c) as the Circular was issued by the CBDT to grant relief to the retirees of the ICICI Bank under the VRS.
S. Sevugan Chettiar vs. Pr. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11657 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Writ quashed - Writ to quash the notice u/s 148 is not maintainable as the petitioner had been communicated with the reasons for reopening and liberty is granted to the petitioner to submit their objections and the first respondent shall take a decision thereon on merits.
Sella Synergy India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Company Circle VI (2) Chennai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11633 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66023&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Once it is held that interest under Section 234C is mandatory and automatic, then the reason, or the cause for the delay and justification for deferment of payment of advance tax, is immaterial.
M/s. MRF Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, LTU
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11527 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66775&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Sec 234C interest is mandatory in nature. Argument that deferment in payment of advance tax was beyond the control of assessee cannot be accepted.
MRF ltd. Vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11497 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 234C
-
HC - There is no power of review conferred on the Settlement Commission to reopen the proceedings.
R. Vijayalakshmi vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission and others
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11488 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Writ allowed - Threat by AO to initiate penalty u/s 271F and prosecution u/s 276CC on return-filing failure is not valid.
Vellore District Consumer Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11460 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - If the assessee has encountered certain hardhip or difficulty in uploading his return, as alleged by him due to technical snags in the website of Income Tax department due to last hour of rush of filing of returns, the delay deserves to be condoned.
CBDT and others vs. Regen Infrastructure & Services Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11458 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 119(2)
-
S. 279(2) Compounding of offenses: The fact that the assessee has been convicted of an offense does not mean that the application for compounding of the offense is not maintainable. Under the guidelines, the competent authority has to examine the merits of the case and decide whether there is a case for compounding. There are no fetters on the powers of the competent authority under the guidelines. An appeal filed against a conviction is a "proceeding" for s. 279(2).
V. A. Haseeb and Co. (Firm) vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11442 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 279(2)
-
HC - CCIT to consider a 71 year old lady's compounding application, despite conviction order passed by Criminal Court against her.
R. Inbavalli vs. GOI/ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11360 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - If a cause was found to be reasonable and for non-filing of return immediately in response to notice under Section 153A, such cause can also be construed as a reasonable cause, while considering as to whether penalty has to be levied under Section 271F.
S. Jayanthi Shri Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Inv) Unit-I, The Commissioner of Income Tax
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11301 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66523&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Writ Allowed - CCIT’s order rejecting compounding application for offence committed by the assessee u/s 276B (i.e. TDS default) u/s 279(2) set aside.
V. A. Haseeb and Co. vs. CCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11126 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Income from rubber plantations situated in Malaysia not taxable in India.
CIT. Vs. M. R. M. Plantations Pvt. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10989 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Writ dismissed - ITSC justified in rejecting application on the ground that additional income offered by assessee in the application was prima facie not full and true.
Dix Francis Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10949 (HC-MADRAS)
-
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer to gain popularity and publicity and attract more clients amounts to an unethical practice of soliciting work and is in violation of the Code of Conduct. The Media should not publish the names of the advocates who appeared in any case as it is an indirect method of soliciting work or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates. The Media should also not publish the names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required
S. Baskar Mathuram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10948 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - Profit from sale of land owned by an educational trust cannot be treated as business income and is eligible for exemption u/s 11 r.w.s 2(15).
CIT. vs. Magunta Raghava Reddy Charitable Trust
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10751 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 11
-
HC - Even in cases where Revenue challenges orders before SC, there could not be any impediment in following the said decisions to cases arising out of similar set of facts and law.
CIT. vs. AL Logistics P. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10637 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80IA(4)
-
HC - Since the date of filing return of income and issuance of Sec 148 notice was prior to provisions of the Black Money Act coming into effect, the settlement applications were maintainable.
Arun Mammen and another vs. UOI and another
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10623 (HC-MADRAS)
-
HC - With effect from 01.04.2003, by virtue of introduction of Section 28(va) to the Act, all monies received pursuant to a negative covenant (Non-compete) become liable for the incidence of taxation.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. TTK Healthcare Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. TTK Pharma Ltd)
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10309 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=65386&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip
-
HC - Not correct to hold that for the purpose of sec. 80IB(10), all pre-construction activities should be taken to be part of development, so as to pre-pone the date of development and construction.
Ravi Appasamy vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10299 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80-IB
-
Compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and interest accruing thereon, is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and does not have the character of "income". If there is a conflict between a social welfare legislation and a taxation legislation, the social welfare legislation will prevail since it subserves larger public interest. CBDT Circular dated 14.10.2011 is not good law
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. vs. Chinnadurai
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10297 (HC-MADRAS)
Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.