Employees’ contribution to EPF and ESIC deposited beyond the due date prescribed under section 36(1)(va) would not be eligible for deduction even if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income tax under section 139(1).
Expenditure on renovation of building taken on lease had to be treated as capital expenditure in view of Expln. 1 to section 32(1), even if assessee was not owner of such building during the period of occupation.
Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s. Madras Cements Ltd. (Madras High Court) Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal against the CESTAT order wherein the Tribunal had set aside the penalty and allowed Cenvat credit on MS items used for fabrication of support structures, while remanding the matter for computation of credit. The Tribunal had […]
M/s. West Asia Exports & Imports Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court) We know that Sec 41(1) of Income Tax Act 1961, where there is cessation of any trading liability then the benefit accruing on account of cessation of such liability will be deemed to profits and gains of business or profession whether or not such […]
Reassessment after period of four years on the ground that assessee had claimed excess deduction under Section 80IB(10) was not valid where assessee had made true and full disclosure and had consciously made only a proportionate claim under Section 80IB(10), which was rightly allowed by AO at the time of original assessment proceedings under Section 143(3).
Issuing of show cause notice in a template-like manner cannot be challenged on basis that it was not clear as to whether the same had been issued for concealing particulars of income’ or furnishing of inaccurate particulars’ of such income merely by reason of mistake or defect i.e., mistake or defect of issuing it in a template and not scoring of the relevant ground and leaving out the applicable ground.
Smt. Ritha Sabapathy Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) We reiterate that the fact finding Tribunals should not shirk their responsibility to decide the cases on merits because the view and reasons given by such Tribunals are important for the Constitutional Higher Courts to look into while deciding the substantial questions of law under Section 260-A […]
The common issue which falls for consideration in these batch of cases is as to whether the respondent, the Income Tax Department, is justified in insisting upon recovery of tax at source from the salary payable to Nuns/Fathers/Priests working in various Teaching Institutions established and administered by the petitioners.
Uthangarai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational and Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) In the present case, the officer proceeds to mechanically call upon the petitioner to remit 20% of the demand without examining the appropriateness of the direction to the facts and circumstances of the petitioners’ case. For this sole reason, Hon’ble High […]
Smt. D. Zeenath Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Assessee created mortgage after acquiring the property and clearing off of the mortgage debt prior to transfer of the property would not entitle her to claim deduction under section 48 as there was only a mere application by the owners themselves of the profits realized on […]
