CIT Vs Y. V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the order passed by CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal, […]
Ram Auto Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise (High Court Madras) In this case The petitioner had filed FORM GST TRAN-1 in time. His only grievance is that he is being denied the benefit of input tax credit for having entered the details in wrong column. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew […]
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Salai Gayathri (Madras High Court) The issue involved in these batch of Writ Appeals lies in a narrow compass viz., Is a person, who could only perform a regular function by wearing glasses would become disentitle to a post he can otherwise perform, by making an assessment qua […]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Banu Constructions (Madras High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT The argument on behalf of the appellant is short and sweet: that the first principles of arbitration law do not permit an unreasoned order to be justified by supplementing reasons therefor upon looking into the evidence or […]
H. Bhima Ram Vs Principal Secretary (Madras High Court) To opt for publication of an intended acquisition in little known newspapers may amount to a fraud on the statute, and a fraud on the right to property of the citizens. Of all the four citations herein quoted, the earliest judgment delivered was on 30.06.2000 [ […]
(i) Whether the gain on sale of stock options in USA that were given to the Indian employee by M/s.Google Inc., USA amounts to perquisites taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?; (ii) Whether the amounts shown in Form-16 as Tax Deducted at Source on such perquisites would be the exclusive gain made by the Assessee on such stock options issued by the Holding Company in USA is sufficient to hold that it is taxable under the head ‘salary’ as ‘perquisites’ with reference to the provisions under Section 5(1) (c) and 6(6) (a) read with Section 17?;
L. Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) In this Even the C.B.I. has not found that Sivaramakrishnan benefitted financially from the criminal activity of fudging records. Of course, these findings of the C.B.I. are not binding on the Enforcement Directorate, but, this Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to this, especially in the light of […]
Dilliraj Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) HC held that we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Enforcement Directorate that the salaries and perquisites that were paid to Dilliraj (A.1) while he was in employment with FLCI would amount to proceeds of crime and any property purchased with that would stand tainted. […]
R. Viswanathan Vs Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (Madras High Court) From a reading of Section 2(u) of the PML Act which defines the expression “proceeds of crime”, it is limpid that the profit derived or obtained must be a result of a criminal activity which relates to a schedule offence. Even if we take […]
High Court held that even if the assessee is engaged in the category of activity of ‘object of general public utility’, they are entitled for registration under Section 12A. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee can claim registration under Section 12A by categorising the activity of the assessee as ‘object of general public utility’.
