A person who has purchased the property using proceeds of crime cannot said to have any interest in the property and the protection under Article 300 A cannot be pressed into service by a perpetrator of a crime. Mere order of attachment could not be said to be violative of the constitutional right to property of the Article 300 A of the Constitution of India.
Deductions either under Section 10A or 10B would be made while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking and not at the stage of computation of the total income.
When partnership firm was transformed into private limited company, there was no distribution of assets and as such, there was no transfer and therefore, assessee was not liable to pay any tax on capital gains.
Choe Jae Won Vs Principal Secretary to the Government (Madras High Court) Finding justification in the plea made by the learned Government Pleader and considering the fact that, several Non-Bailable Warrants have already been issued to the Petitioners and that, there is every possibility of the Petitioners fleeing away from the clutches of Law, this […]
All interim orders passed by the High Court at Madras – Principal Bench that were subsisting as on 20th March, 2020 may stand extended till 30th April, 2020 unless vacated or modified earlier or until further orders of the Court unless specifically dealt with by any judicial order to the contrary.
It is abundantly clear from Sub-Section (2) that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under that Sub-Section. It is hereby clarified that once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 80IA for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section.
The writ petition is not maintainable challenging the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Hon’ble Supreme court in GKN Drive Shafts’ case reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC), clarified the procedure to be followed, when notice is issued under Section 148. Therefore, the petitioner has to follow such procedure including by asking the reasons for reopening the assessment. Upon the request so made, the reasons can be furnished and the petitioner can file objections and the Officer thereafter has to pass a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. In this case, the writ petitioner has not filed the return and on the other hand filed the present writ petition straightaway.
Tenzing Match Works Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Even trial production machineries kept ready for use etc., were considered to be used for the purpose of business to qualify for depreciation. In ‘CIT -Vs- Geo Tech Construction 244 ITR 452 (Kerala)’ , the machinery which was purchased by the assess from Pondicherry was yet to […]
It was admitted in the counter-affidavit itself that the assessee had cleared the dues and as on date no tax dues were payable in respect of previous financial years. Inasmuch as the tax has been subsequently paid, continuance of the impugned prosecution under section 276C(2) would only amount to an abuse of legal process.
Qatalys Software Technologies Private Limited Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Revenue is right in contending that Section 234 (E) of the Act is not a penalty. Penalty is levied under Section 271 (H) and is not automatic. Penalty is levied only when tax is deducted at source along with interest fee is not deposited […]
