Madras High Court held that that the scope of interference to a show-cause notice by a writ Court exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited, barring few exceptions, like lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process of law, etc. Here, writ petition entertained as show cause notice issued on lack of jurisdiction.
Madras High Court held that an order of settlement brings the entire dispute to an end and the same includes co-noticees as well. As Settlement Commissioner has granted immunity to the importer, no proceedings can be continued against CHA in same transaction.
Mobis India Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in 1979, in Indian and Eastern News Paper Society, put the issue beyond any pale of doubt by holding that the opinion on law rendered by an audit party cannot be the basis for exercising the power of reassessment. Evaluation of law […]
HC ruled in favor of assessee by directing department to process Input Tax Credit claim that were previously rejected solely on the ground of inadvertent error.
Sayar Cars Vs Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT) Commercial Taxes Building (Madras High Court) It is an admitted position that none of the assessment orders or, for the matter, the show cause notices, reveal any application of mind to the aspect of wilful suppression. The officer merely proceeds on the fact that there was a difference […]
Madras High Court held that DGFT has powers to only clarify the doubts raised as to the interpretation of Policy and doesnt have powers to amend the FTP policy. Accordingly, 100% EOU eligible for benefits of availing SHIS.
Madras High Court held that order directing forfeiture of property u/s. 7 of the Competent Authority under the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 is unsustainable as link or the nexus between the income of the detenue and the acquisition of the property is not established.
The Honble Madras High Court observed that Juxtaposing the provisions of both the Acts viz., Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992, with each other, it is explicit that collection of any amount in excess of what has been prescribed as fee or in the nature of donation or voluntary contribution either directly or indirectly to the institution or through some other person or institution or trust, as quid pro quo for the seat in any educational institution, would render the activity of both the entities ungenuine.
Madras High Court held that an application seeking compassionate appointment lapsed several years from the death of the deceased employee is not allowable
Madras High Court held that for contract entered prior to 01.07.2017 under National Highways and Public Works Department differential tax liability is to be computed as per Government Orders and any recovery affected from the contractor contrary to the methodology will be refunded.
