This intra-court appeal is directed against an order dated 28.08.2017, wherein and whereby a learned single Judge of this Court had dismissed a writ petition in which a notice dated 16.08.2017, issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, under Section 263 of Income Tax Act, 1961, was assailed. To be noted, order of the learned single Judge is a common order in two writ petitions, but this judgment deals with the order in W.P.No.22978 of 2017 alone.
M/s. Agasthiya Holdings Private Limited Vs CIT (Madras High Court) In Tax Recovery Officer Vs. Gangadhar Viswanath Ranade (Decd.,) reported in AIR 1999 SC 427, the scope of Section 281 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 11 of the Second Schedule came up for consideration. The question arose for consideration before the Honourable Supreme […]
CIT Vs. Cactus Imaging India (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court) It can be inferred that the machines ‘computer printers’ under consideration can either be called computers-printers, since a lot of independent functions done by the computers are done by these printers and they can be called an integral part of the computer system. It should […]
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.No.1496/Mds/2005 dated 19.12.2007 for the assessment year 2002-03. The above tax case appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law
The Madras High Court recently ruled that payment of Interest by the co-operative society to its members would not attract tax deduction at source (TDS) prior to the amendment of such provision.
A bare reading of cl. (baa) (1) indicates that receipts by way of brokerage, commission, interest, rent, charges etc., formed part of gross total income being business profits. But, for the purposes of working out the formula and in order to avoid distortion of arriving export profits cl. (baa) stood inserted to say that although incentive profits and ‘independent incomes’ constituted part of gross total income, they had to be excluded from gross total income because such receipts had no nexus with the export turnover.
Initiation of reopening proceedings without communicating the reasons for reopening to the assessee was not justified.
Where revision application was filed by assessee, however, assessee had not been able to point out any error, which was apparent on the face of the order but the attempt appeared to be re-arguing the entire matter which is impermissible, accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Since CGST Act, 2017 came in force with effect from 1-7-2017, contract work for which agreements were executed prior to 1-7-2017, GST would not be imposed on same and 2 per cent VAT alone was applicable
The Writ Petitioner prays for a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of Order-in-Original dated 21.04.2017 passed by the respondent and quashing of the same as arbitrary and illegal.
