There is no compulsion to opt under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax Act, 2006 and it is open to a works contractor to pay taxes under section 5.
Section 278 (e) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, empowers the Court to presume culpable mental state of the accused, unless, the accused shows that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in the prosecution.
IGGI Resorts International Limited Vs Tax Recovery Officer (Madras High Court) Facts- The petitioner was in arrears of income tax for a sum of Rs.29,84,56,331/- for the period prior to the year 2008. Earlier, proceedings were initiated and Tax Recovery certificate was issued on various dates (02.06.2000, 16.01.2003 and 19.03.2007) by the Tax Recovery Officer, […]
Reassessment notice under Section 148 of IT Act i.e, impugned notice if carried to its logical end, in the facts and circumstances of the case, will clearly neutralize all these arguments and the writ petitioner assessee bank will not be aggrieved in any manner.
Vellaian Selvaraj Vs Additional/Joint/Deputy/Asst. CIT/ITO (Madras High Court) Considering the fact that the impugned Assessment Orders have been passed without any discussion, these Writ Petitions are allowed by remitting the case back to the National Faceless Assessment Centre to pass a fresh order within a period of sixty days based on the reply filed by […]
Chandrasekaran Ragupati Vs CBDT (Madras High Court) It is the admitted case on the part of the Revenue that, on the last date i.e., on 11.06.2021, which was given to the petitioner to reply ie., upto which the web portal of the respondent was not functioning because of technical glitches. This has been admitted by […]
R.Barathbaran (Died) Vs R. Nallathambi (Madras High Court) There is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature and thump impression has to be obtained for a pro-note and the lower Appellate Judge has totally misguided and misused the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding burden of proof and not […]
Madras HC directs sanction of refund, which was not sanctioned due to non transmission of data from GST portal to Customs portal, due to entry of wrong details in GSTR 3B by the taxpayer.
Gujan Builder Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) In this case The SVLDRS 4 was not issued by the Designated Committee at that point of time. Since there is no provision to manually process it now, your request to issue discharge certificate cannot be acceded to. Moreover, the only situation where manual processing is possible […]
S.R.Trust Vs PCIT (Madras High Court) ITAT held that procedure of cancellation of the registration already enjoyed either under 12A regime or 12AA regime in the case of the petitioner, in view of the new regime having been introduced, shall take place only after disposing the application made by the trust or institution, under the […]
