In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted amounts of Rs.66.05 and Rs.16.58 lakhs as deposits even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of Rs.66.05 lakhs as towards tax and Rs.16.58 lakhs as towards interest.
The Daily Thanthi Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) High Court held that amount deposited during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be construed as having paid ‘under protest’ and has to be refunded without insisting on such importer or manufacturer satisfying the requirement of “unjust enrichment” as […]
Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after the lapse of eight assessment years in view of the section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001.
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right ignoring the Rule 45 of the IT Rules mandating filing of e-appeal with effect from 02.3.2016 and Board Circular 20/2019 dated 26.5.2016 extending the time for filing of e-appeal only till 15.6.2016 a
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest and salary received by the assessee from firms in which he was a partner cannot be construed as business income u/s. 28(v) and therefore not eligible for applying the presumptive interest rate of 8% under section 44AD of the Act?
Tmt.T.A.H.Zubaida Ummal Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Where the mortgage had been created by the owner after he had acquired the property, the clearing of the mortgage by him prior to the transfer of the property would not entitle him to claim deduction under Section 48 because, in such a case he did not […]
AGS Cinemas Pvt. Ltd Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) Hon;b;e High Court held that ‘online booking charges’ charged by a Cinema Hall Owner besides the “cost of ticket” for entry into the cinema hall and enjoy the entertainment in the form of a movie, is not part of taxable receipt by the Cinema […]
Prosecution launched by the Deputy Director for alleged non disclosure of cash by assessee and his wife was not maintainable and premature one. Merely because the power vested to lodge a complaint by the Deputy Director every case the prosecution could not be launched merely on the conferment of such power without any material. If AO came to the conclusion in a proceedings under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, it was open to the Department to initiate penal action as per law.
Since the petition against Enforcement Directorate towards claiming of interest under section 42(3) of FERA towards seized travellers cheques was filed more than 9 years after receiving the rupee equivalent of UK Pounds 1800 without providing of any reasonable explanation for the delay, therefore, the same was liable to be rejected solely on the ground of laches.
PCIT Vs Redington (India) Limited (Madras High Court) These appeals have been filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) challenging the common order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ‘D’ Bench, Chennai (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in I.T.A.No.513/Mds/2014 (filed by […]
