Chennai Port trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 29(a) of the Urban Land Tax Act as it did not produce any evidence to prove that the Lands were owned by the Central Government and that the Madras Dock Labour Board was only the ostensible owner. Indeed, the evidence on record indicated that the Madras Dock Labour Board was both the ostensible and real owner and the Lands were assessed to urban land tax and that the Madras Dock Labour Board paid urban land tax as and when demanded. Moreover, the Board Circular dated 30.06.1976 expressly provided that lands owned by the Madras Port Trust would not be eligible for the exemption under Section 29(a).
Share Aids Private Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee Ms. Madhupreetha Elango submitted that the if a loss is caused on the sale of the Capital Assets by the Assessee, the same should be allowed as Business Expenditure under Section 41(2) of the Act as it cannot be brought […]
A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed
United Processors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is brought to notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- Tex-in-Printers (Order dated 04.10.2013 in Tax Case (Revision) No. 49 of 2009) has reiterated that after introduction of Section […]
Ganesh Lubricants (Properietor – P. Surendrakumar) Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The primary ground for challenge is that the spot collection of taxes is wholly illegal and unwarranted, when the assessment for the respective year is still pending. It is settled law that recovery of tax inspecting officials (Enforcement Wing) is illegal. In […]
PCIT Vs S.R.Trust (Madras High Court) Conclusion: In the absence of any incriminating documents or evidence discovered during the course of search under Section 132 in the case of searched person against the assessee, the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 153C could not be assumed. Held: Assessee was a charitable trust registered under Section […]
The issue under consideration is whether the show cause notice indicate the exact amount of service demanded in the respective services under Service Tax? An adjudication order without a proposal and made in pursuant of a vague show cause notice cannot be sustained.
HC Allows Petitioner Retrospective Registration under Tamil Nadu GST. Court directs the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 14.09.2020 seeking for validation of his registration from 01.07.2017 itself and pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law.
Kothari International Trading Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) The only point to be decided herein is whether the loan amount waived by the bank is taxable income or not. As already stated, in the decision referred by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of CIT Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra, the assessees […]
Solamalai Automobiles Private Limited vs The Designated Committee (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court has held that for cases falling under ‘Amount in arrears’ category under the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019, the deposits should be adjusted after the determination of the amount payable. Department’s contention that the sum paid was to […]
