Gopalratnam Santha Mosur Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The petitioner was the co-owner of the immovable property situated in Tamil Nadu and she had sold the property and paid the entire capital gain tax applicable in respect of the transaction. The petitioner thereafter claimed 50% of the capital gains tax as rebate under Indo-Canadian DTAA. […]
M/s. Jaap Auto Distributors Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) A Writ Court cannot make a fact finding exercise to ascertain, which would be an appropriate entry under which the goods are to be classified. In fact, under the normal course in respect of classification disputes, the High Court cannot entertain an appeal […]
Those who are not PAN holders, while applying for PAN, they are required to give Aadhaar number. This is the stipulation of sub-section (1) of Section 139AA, which we have already upheld.
Detailed investigations carried out by the assessing officer establish the position that the contributors to share capital were persons of insignificant means and their credit worthiness to have made the contributions has not been established.
Heard Mr.P. Rajkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.K.Venkatesh, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
Under the new tax regime, GST (comprising CGST, SGST and IGST) on works contracts for Government work was intially notified at 18 percent. This had resulted in representations from contractors of ongoing works for compensation by procuring entity for increased tax liability over and above the contracted value of work.
Preeti Mohan Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) The petitioner before this Court is a practicing advocate and she has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the ITO to allow her to file income tax returns for the assessment year 2017-18 either manually or through e-filing facility without insisting for production […]
The legal principle is that the person who hears must decide. Therefore, by applying the said principle to the case on hand, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is to send back the matter for fresh consideration before the first respondent, on the plea for waiver of interest under section 220(2) and rule 5 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961
This Demand Draft was sent along with a notice, dated 22.1.2015. The third respondent has received the demand draft, but, unfortunately, misplaced the same. It is not known, as to how, the Revenue Department of the Corporation can be so careless in misplacing the demand draft, especially, when such amount was directed to be paid, pursuant to the Court order.
The petitioner’s first and foremost contention is that the same transaction cannot be taxed under the Finance Act for service tax and VAT. Further, it is contended that there is no transfer of right to use the goods and the contract between the petitioner and the BPCL is a non-exclusive contract and the installation and facility is used by the petitioner for themselves, for BPCL as well as IOC and the observation of the Assessing Officer that there is a transfer of right in using the goods is an incorrect finding
