Madras High Court

Dayanidhi Maran: S.148 Recording of reasons does not mean that same should be communicated along with notice itself

Dayanidhi Maran Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)

In the present cases on hand, the request made by the writ petitioner had been complied with and the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had been communicated to the writ petitioner. The said propositions are very well recognised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Thus the very provision ...

Read More

Lvey of IGST in Imports under Advance Authorisation valid & Constitutional

M/s. Vedanta Limited Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court)

M/s. Vedanta Limited Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court) Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking inter-alia that the conditions S.No. 2(c) of Notification No 79/2017-Customs dated 13th October, 2017 is inter alia arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and quash the same. that para...

Read More

Making of a statutory claim U/s. 54/54F cannot be said to be concealment of particulars of income

CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)

CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court)  The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribuna...

Read More

Notice for Revision U/s. 263: Limitation period to begin from date of assessment or date of re-assessment?

Indira Industries Vs. Pr. CIT (Madras High Court)

When a notice under section 263 dealt with several issues, which were not subject-matter of re-assessment proceedings, then, two years period contemplated under section 263(2) would begin to run from date of original assessment and not from date of re-assessment, CIT issued notice under section 263 from date of re-assessment, therefore, ...

Read More

In absence of involvement in day-to-day management of company assessee cannot be prosecuted U/s. 276 B

Kalanithi Maran Vs Union of India (Madras High Court)

Kalanithi Maran Vs. UOI (Madras High Court) In the absence of any material, 2nd respondent should not have come to conclusion that assessee was Principal Officer. Unless the 2nd respondent makes out a prima facie case against petitioner of his liability and obligation as Principal Officer in day-to-day affairs of the company as Chairman-c...

Read More

Show cause notice cannot pre-judge the issue- Order denying credit cannot be SCN

TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commr. of CGST & CE (Madras High Court)

TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commr. of CGST & CE (Madras High Court) The respondent states that the impugned order is only a show cause notice (SCN). This Court is unable to agree with the said stand taken by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue, as a show cause notice cannot […]...

Read More

S. 54 Cost of land cannot be segregated in computation of cost of new asset

C. Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT (Madras High Court)

C. Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT (Madras High Court) What has to be adjusted and/or set off against the capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section 54(1) of the said Act is specific and clear.It is the cost of the new residential house and not just the cost […]...

Read More

If no cash involved in share allotment than unexplained cash credit provisions not attracted

M/s. V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

M/s.V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) When there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in [&h...

Read More

Can writ petition be dismissed on the sole ground that appellant had a right of reply to show cause notice

M/s. WABCO India Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

The short question in this appeal is whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had a right of reply to the show cause notice. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, for the reasons discussed hereinbelow....

Read More

Notice issued in the name of a dead person is unenforceable despite non-intimation of death

Alamelu Veerappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court)

Alamelu Veerappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner – his spouse to participate in the ...

Read More

Browse All Categories

CA, CS, CMA (3,934)
Company Law (4,145)
Custom Duty (7,114)
DGFT (3,786)
Excise Duty (4,171)
Fema / RBI (3,547)
Finance (3,750)
Income Tax (28,351)
SEBI (2,986)
Service Tax (3,413)

Featured Posts