The Madras High Court held that the option under Section 36(1)(vii-a) of the Income Tax Act belongs exclusively to the assessee and cannot be substituted by the Assessing Officer. The Court directed recomputation of taxable income after rejecting the Department’s restrictive interpretation.
Court upheld the validity of the Section 148 notice but set aside the assessment order after finding that notices were sent to an old email address, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Madras High Court held that objections regarding fraud, suppression, and penalty proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act should be raised before the appellate authority. The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction where statutory appeal remedies were available.
Madras High Court held that time-share membership fees could not be fully taxed in the year of receipt since the assessee had continuing obligations extending over several years. The Court approved spreading part of the income over the membership tenure.
The Madras High Court quashed prosecution under Sections 276CC and 278B after finding that the petitioner had resigned as director before the relevant assessment year. The Court relied on Form No.32 filed with the Registrar of Companies.
The Madras High Court refused to quash prosecution under Section 276C(2) after noting continued non-payment of admitted tax liability and prolonged default. The Court held that issues raised by the assessee should be decided during trial.
The Madras High Court held that disputes regarding alleged false or incomplete election affidavit disclosures must be raised through an election petition. The Court ruled that such issues cannot be examined in a writ petition under Article 226.
The Madras High Court held that taxable income was not properly computed where deduction under Section 80IB was reduced before calculating Section 80HHC relief. The matter was remanded for fresh assessment in line with the Supreme Court ruling in Shital Fibers Ltd.
The Madras High Court held that manufacturers of alcoholic liquor cannot be denied C-Forms for inter-State ENA purchases because the GST Council had consciously maintained status quo on ENA taxation. The Court ruled that GST indecision cannot obstruct the right to trade.
The Madras High Court permitted Nidhi companies to submit fresh replies against NDH-4 rejection orders and directed authorities to reconsider the applications after granting a hearing. The Court kept the challenge to the validity of the amended provisions open.
