P. Amarnath Reddy Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) It is pertinent to note that in the Assessment Order, M/s.Shoetek Agencies is the assessee’s proprietary concern and is engaged in the business of leather and leather products. In the Assessment Order, though the assessee contended that Mrs. Swetha Reddy went aboard in the capacity of Marketing […]
PCIT Vs SRM Systems and Software P. Ltd. (Madras High Court) The assessee disclosed share capital advance to the tune of Rs.6,17,81,000/- and they were directed to furnish names and addresses of the persons, who contributed the advance share capital. The assessee, by reply dated 15.12.2010, stated that the advance towards share capital is Rs.5,65,96,723/- however, […]
Ashok Kumar B. Chowatia Vs JCIT (TDS) (Madras High Court) To the extent tax was deducted by the second respondent and not remitted by the second respondent to the Income Tax Department, recovery can be only directed against the second respondent as the second respondent is the assessee in default. The petitioner cannot be made […]
CIT Vs Rishabh Infopark Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) The only issue in the appeals of the Revenue is that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in holding that the lease rent income received from letting out modules of Software Technology park to various lessees would constitute income from business and eligible for deduction under […]
CIT Vs HTC Global Services India Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court) Appellate Tribunal was not correct in confirming to reduce the expenses relating to telecommunication and travel expenses in foreign currency from the total turnover for computing deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act. Further Appellate Tribunal was not right in excluding the […]
CIT Vs L & T Transportation Infrastructure Ltd. (Madras High Court) It is well-settled that there cannot be two owners of the property simultaneously and int he same sense of the term. The intention of the Legislature in enacting Section 32 of the Act would be best fulfilled by allowing deduction in respect of depreciation […]
The Petitioner contended that the amendment was effected by way of rectification of an anomaly and therefore, it cannot be construed as a new policy. Thus, the benefit of ITC granted pursuant to the amendment is to be extended so as to cover the transactions took place prior to the insertion of the amendment.
In fact, there is a column available for reasons on the basis of which the claim has been either accepted or rejected. However, this column in the impugned order is conspicuously blank and no reasons have been adduced for the rejection of the request. Bearing in mind the violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order of rejection is set aside.
Aban Offshore Limited Vs Addl. CIT (Madras High Court) Case Summary: – Facts of the case: ♦ The Assessee, Aban Offshore Limited, engaged in providing oil field services to various oil majors for offshore exploration and production of hydrocarbons in India and abroad, is a regular Assessee in terms of the provisions of the Indian […]
CIT Vs Tamil Nadu Small Industries Corporation Limited (Madras High Court) Under the existing provisions of sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Income-tax Act, carried forward unabsorbed depreciation is allowed to be set-off against profits and gains of business or profession of the subsequent year, subject to the condition that the business or profession […]
