Lakshmi Card Clothing Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Facts of the case clearly show that the assessee did not make any claim for deduction under Section 80-I of the Act, for the relevant assessment year. Secondly, as pointed out by us in the preceding paragraph, while discussing about the applicability of […]
Mahendra Kumar Singhi Vs Commissioner of State Tax (High Court of Madras) Section 132 of the Act will apply with all force the moment an invoice or a bill is issued without, movement of goods or Input Tax Credit has been wrongly availed. In the present caser the preliminary investigation reveals that the entities have […]
M/s. Dalmia Power Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) a) The scheme of arrangement and amalgamation approved by the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 391 of the Companies Act gives statutory force to enable the respective petitioners to file the revised returns of income beyond the prescribed period and Section 139(5) of the Income […]
K. Chandrasekaran Vs TRO (Madras High Court) The present impugned order is put to challenge mainly on three grounds. The first ground raised is that the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the impugned order. When such contention is specifically raised by the petitioner, it is the duty of the respondent to place […]
CIT Vs M/s. Muthuramalingam Modern Rice Mill (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Conversion of Paddy into Rice by the process of de-husking would amount to “maufacture” as not only the form underwent a change but also the value addition happened by such process as a different commercial article came into being and therefore, assessee was entitled […]
M/s. Jayachandran Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) In the present case, the Department does not dispute that action was intended or envisaged in the light of Section 132 of the CGST Act, the counter fairly stating that the provisions of Section 132 of the CGST Act were […]
Assets received by the retiring partners of a firm through family arrangement did not amount to ‘transfer’ for the purpose of imposing capital gain, and therefore, the reconstitution of firm would not attract Section 45(4).
Vsg Exports Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Facts Refund of Integrated Tax (IGST) paid on the goods exported out of India. Since the respondents did not refund the IGST amount, the Writ Petition was filed. According to the petitioner, they have claimed lower rate drawback as per Notification 131/2016(NT) , dated […]
Shri R. Bhoopathy Vs CIT (Madras High Court) he scourge of Capitation Fee by Medical and Engineering Colleges is an infamous and thoroughly extortionist act that is going on in the education sector in our country and it is almost a known fact that these so called Educational Institutions act more like Business Houses rather […]
Firstly, we may observe that the learned Single Judge was absolutely right in holding that the Assessee, having not raised an objection before the Assessing Authority to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147/148 of the Act, should be deemed to have acquiesced to the same. Nothing prevented the Assessee from raising the objection, which could have been dealt with by the Assessing Authority in accordance with law.
