Madras High Court

Section 234E is not violative of Constitution of India: Madras HC

Qatalys Software Technologies Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)

Qatalys Software Technologies Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Revenue is right in contending that Section 234 (E) of the Act is not a penalty. Penalty is levied under Section 271 (H) and is not automatic. Penalty is levied only when tax is deducted at source along with interest fee is not deposited […]...

Read More

HC allows filing of Appeal on payment of Rs. 2 Lakh instead of 20% of demand

Suresh Anuradha Vs CIT (Madras High Court)

Suresh Anuradha Vs CIT (Madras High Court) In the given case, the second respondent has demanded the petitioner to pay a sum equivalent to 20% of levied tax on or before 17.01.2020 for entertaining the appeal and stay petition under Section 220(6) of Income Tax Act 1961. Earlier, an assessment order was passed on 11.12.2009 […]...

Read More

Madras HC extends interim orders until April 30 amid Novel Coronavirus

Suo Motu (Madras High Court)

All interim orders passed by the High Court at Madras – Principal Bench that were subsisting as on 20th March, 2020 may stand extended till 30th April, 2020 unless vacated or modified earlier or until further orders of the Court unless specifically dealt with by any judicial order to the contrary....

Read More

‘Initial assessment year’ means 1st year opted by assessee for Section 80IA deduction

CIT Vs Chola Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. (Madras High Court)

It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under that Sub-Section. It is hereby clarified that on...

Read More

NI Act | Section 138 Proceedings Not Maintainable against Independent Non-Executive Directors

Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)

Sunita Palta & Ors. Vs. Kit Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Non-Executive Directors are, therefore, persons who are not involved in the day-to-day affairs of the running of the company and are not in charge of and not responsible for the conduct of the business of the company.’ Admittedly, the petitioners are neither the...

Read More

No denial of drawback claim though processing was carried out at 100% EOU

GTN Textiles Limited Vs Secretary to Government (Madras High Court)

Claim of drawback of excise and customs duties paid on the raw materials used in manufacturing could not be denied merely because some processes in the chain of manufacturing had been conducted in the premise of EOU/unit of EPZ, if the assessee was otherwise entitled to the benefit....

Read More

Section 148 notice can be challenged before HC only after following procedure

S.M. Sarveswaran (HUF) Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

The writ petition is not maintainable challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon'ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts' case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by a...

Read More

Trial production machineries kept ready for use qualifies for depreciation

Tenzing Match Works Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

Tenzing Match Works Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Even trial production machineries kept ready for use etc., were considered to be used for the purpose of business to qualify for depreciation. In ‘CIT -Vs- Geo Tech Construction 244 ITR 452 (Kerala)’ , the machinery which was purchased by the assess from Pondicherry was yet to [&...

Read More

MEIS benefit cannot be denied for mere inadvertent error

Davinci Leather Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)

The petitioner, engaged in the export of leather shoes, had filed a shipping bill claiming duty drawback. The export transaction, the petitioner states, was also entitled for benefit under the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) notified under the Foreign Trade Policy....

Read More

E-Assessment without human interaction may lead to erroneous assessment

Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

Salem Sree Ramavilas Chit Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) .The Government of India has introduced E-Governance for conduct of assessment proceedings electronically. It is a laudable steps taken by the Income Tax Department to pave way for an objective assessment without human interaction. At the same time, such proceedings can lead to...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (4,563)
Company Law (5,641)
Custom Duty (7,679)
DGFT (4,174)
Excise Duty (4,342)
Fema / RBI (4,069)
Finance (4,217)
Income Tax (32,450)
SEBI (3,372)
Service Tax (3,544)