Carbon Credit was not an offshoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business, but it was generated due to environmental concerns. Therefore, income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
S. R. Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Search proceedings had been rightly initiated as assessee had nothing to fear, they could as well place all the materials before AO for consideration and more so, the jurisdictional facts exist for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A as well as Section 153C of the Act. […]
M/s. Accoladee Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Brief: Conversion of the shipping bill from ‘drawback shipping bills to drawback-cum-advance authorization’ shipping bills. It is revealed that the advance authorization licence taken by the petitioner is not disputed. Our Comments: In the present case, petitioner is a manufacturer and exporter of garments. In the […]
Larsen & Toubro Limited Vs Senior Intelligence Officer (Madras High Court) The challenge to the summons itself is pre-mature, insofar as it only calls upon the addressees to appear before the officials for a preliminary hearing. One cannot assume or hypothesize on what the purpose of the summons is and I am thus loathe to […]
Southern Railways had to pay the GST Tax with reference to the license fee collected from the contractors and the contractors were liable to pay the service tax with reference to the parking fee collected from the customers, who all were end users.
Recovery can only be made against deductor who is the assessee in default, to the extent tax was deducted by the deductor and not remitted to the Income-tax Department. 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 to pay tax twice. Recovery of any of such Tax Deducted at Source but not remitted by the second respondent has to be recovered only from the second respondent .
Raj Arivazhagan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) In the case on hand, the petitioner had raised a specific objection that the proposal for reopening the assessment is liable to be dropped, since there is no finding that there was escapement of income. It was further contended that for the purpose of carrying on verification exercise, […]
State Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court) Whether the Financial Institution, which is a secured creditor, or the department of the government concerned, would have the ‘Priority of Charge’ over the mortgaged property in question, with regard to the tax and other dues? No doubt that the rights of a secured […]
Courts were expected to ensure that all such legal grounds available to the parties were adjudicated before the proper forum and only after exhausting the statutory remedies, writ petitions were to be entertained. Therefore, High court ordered assessee to exhaust the appellate remedy, either under Section 128 or Section 129 of the Customs Act, respectively and the courts must not provide an unnecessary opportunity to escape from liability merely on jurisdictional error.
Jayasakthi Papers Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) The only question that arises for my consideration is whether the goods imported by the petitioner can be termed as a stock lot. This expression in normal parlance refers to those goods whose transaction value is less than the market value on account of their purchase […]
