CIT Vs. City Lubricants Pvt. Ltd (Madras High Court) Thus, the issue pertaining to the amount of advance received by the assessee, namely, Rs.9 Crores was never the subject matter of the reopening proceedings which is sufficient to hold that the assessment order dated 25.03.2015 to be a nullity. Nevertheless, we heard the learned counsels […]
The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited Vs Ramesh Babu (Madras High court) In the present case, the Personal Accident Coverage Policy has been agreed between the appellant/Insurance company as well as the respondent. Rs.2,00,000/- is fixed under the Personal Accident Coverage Policy. The Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.2,16,500/-towards compensation. The Tribunal has […]
1) Section 54(3)(ii) does not infringe Article 14. (2) Refund is a statutory right and the extension of the benefit of refund only to the unutilised credit that accumulates on account of the rate of tax on input goods being higher than the rate of tax on output supplies by excluding unutilised input tax credit that accumulated on account of input services is a valid classification and a valid exercise of legislative power.
It was submitted that when the assessee has adopted a particular method of valuation as provided under the Act and Rules and in the absence of any material that such method was adopted to defraud the Revenue, merely because the Assessing Officer is of the view that NAV method alone has to be adopted is not a ground to reject the DCF method.
High court held that since the defaulter had transferred the property in favour of his brother’s wife, by appointing his own brother as the Power Agent to act on his behalf and such a sale has happened within six months from the date of which the demand of arrears of tax was made, it can be said there are no bona fides in such a transfer.
The issue under consideration is whether TDS on Cash Withdrawal u/s 194N is applicable even though the sums withdrawn is not constitute income in the hands of the recipient?
CIT Vs M.A. Jacob & Company (Madras High Court) The order passed on the Settlement Applications filed by the assessee is dated 07.01.2000. The second order of ITSC was passed on 19.02.2004. After those orders passed by ITSC on the issue in question, concerning the assessee, in the year 2010, the Honourable Supreme Court had […]
The issue under consideration is whether the an extended period of limitation of 5 years can be allowed to the Adjudicating Authority even if there is no suppression of facts made out against the Assessee?
The issue under consideration is whether deduction u/s 54F can be denied for the reason that assessee had later on let out new property for commercial purpose to run restaurant?
Difficulty in obtaining ‘C’ forms under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 in order to avail concessional benefit of tax for purchase of High Speed Diesel from suppliers in other states.
