Madras High Court

VAT on terminalling services provided to BPCL when Service Tax already been paid

SHV Energy Private Limited Vs The State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)

The petitioner's first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used b...

Read More

No Action Can Be Taken against Tobacco Manufactures under FSSAI Act as it’s not a food product

Jayavilas Tobacco Traders LLP Vs The Designated Officer (Madras High Court)

The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the sale of tobacco would not attract the provisions of the enactment. He further submits that as per Rule 2.3.4 of the Food Safety and Standards (Prohibition and Restrictions on Sales) Regulations Act, 2011, tobacco shall not be used as ingredients in […]...

Read More

Appellate Authorities can allow Additional Claims made by Assessee during Proceedings

CIT Vs M/s. Abhinitha Foundation Pvt Ltd. (Madras High Court)

High Court has held that even if, the claim made by the assessee company does not form part of the original return or even the revised return, it could still be considered, if, the relevant material was available on record, either by the appellate authorities, (which includes both the CIT (A) and the Tribunal) by themselves, or on remand,...

Read More

Notice U/s. 148 given for service to Post Authorities on Last Day-Valid?

Abab Offshore Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

When postal authorities collected notice from revenue on 31-3-2015 (last date of expiry of six years from end of relevant assessment year) as per arrangement between revenue and postal department, though such notice was served to assessee later, such notice under section 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was not barred by limitation....

Read More

Mere furnishing Shareholders ID not sufficient to discharge onus u/s 68

M/s. B.R. Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

In B.R Petrochem Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO, the division bench of the Madras High Court held that mere furnishing of identity of shareholders by the asseessee would not sufficient to discharge their onus under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. While confirming the addition made against the assessee, the bench ruled that the assessee must prove the ...

Read More

HC set aside Assessment Order merely based on web report

Tvl.Sri.Kumaraguru Traders, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

Impugned order of assessment was made based on the Web Report, the Assessing Authority is not justified in passing the impugned order of assessment, without furnishing the details of such report and without conducting any enquiry at all levels....

Read More

Loss on Foreign Cars Sale used in Business is ‘Business Loss

K. D. Madan Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

Loss suffered by the assessee on the sale of foreign is quantified at a figure of Rs. 51,6,108/-. The only question that remains is to determine the nature of loss. In view of the categoric finding of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that has attained finality, to the effect that the foreign cars were utilised in the business of t...

Read More

Tax liability under Expenditure Tax on raising of a composite bill upon conclusion of hotel stay

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Adyar Gate Hotel Ltd. (Madras High Court)

High Court held that under Expenditure Tax Act 1987 chargeable expenditure would be incurred only upon raising of a composite bill upon conclusion of hotel stay and not earlier....

Read More

Even A Beggar can stand as Surety; HC explain Law on Surety

Sagayam @ Devasagayam Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police (Madras High Court)

It cannot be denied that a bogus person should not be accepted as a surety. A person who is offering surety must have acceptable residential proof. He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety provided he should have some acceptable residential proof....

Read More

Plea in Madras HC on Penalty on CAs for Filing Wrong Information- Section 271J

V. Venkata Siva Kumar Vs The Union of India (Madras High Court)

A petition has been filed in the Madras High Court challenging the section 271J of the Income Tax Act inserted vide Finance Act 2017. Madras High Court has admitted the plea and issued notice to Finance Ministry.Section 271J of Income Tax imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on Chartered Accountants for each wrong certification or report....

Read More
Page 1 of 2712345...1020...Last »

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,480)
Company Law (3,398)
Custom Duty (6,603)
DGFT (3,446)
Excise Duty (4,043)
Fema / RBI (3,249)
Finance (3,453)
Income Tax (25,013)
SEBI (2,733)
Service Tax (3,280)