Fenner (India) Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) High Court court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly directed the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deduction under section 80HHC of the Act, which warrants no interference. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER […]
HC upheld the cancellation of a gift deed after noting that the possession was not handed over and that the deed was not acted upon by the parties.
P.R. Mani Air Fridge & Electronics Vs Office of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Madras High Court) Heard Mr. N. Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for R1. There is no appearance for R2. 2. Both learned counsel will concur on the position that identically placed petitioners […]
Explore the ACIT Vs Zodiac Transport case as ITAT Delhi directs fresh adjudication on protective additions, influenced by the SVP Group entities recent partial relief.
It was incumbent on the part of the petitioners to have made proper declaration under Customs Baggage Declaration Regulations, 2013 read with Baggage Rules 2016. These Rules apply to all passengers including tourist coming to India.
HC held that under the Customs Act, 1962, there are different Power Centres for appointing persons as Officers of Customs for discharging their powers and functions (duties) imposed under the Act. The contours of powers to be exercised by such Officers of Customs is to be drawn by the Board.
HC held that, detention/seizure of the vehicle and goods without issuing proper notice or detention order by the proper officer is in gross contravention of the statutory provisions.
Mahendra Feeds and Foods (Trading Division) Vs Deputy Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) The petitioner is a dealer under the GST regime. He has availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) for the Financial Year 2017-18 and 2018-19 from December 2017 to March 2019. But, according to the Revenue, the ITC claimed by […]
The Petitioner has challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was issued with a notice under Section 148A of the Income Act, 1961 on 20.03.2022 and that the Petitioner has also replied to the same on 25.03.2022, which has also been acknowledged. However, the impugned order has wrongly recorded that the Petitioner has not responded.
Giant Construction Company Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) The petitioner assails the communication dated 21.04.2022 by which the objections raised by the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment were rejected. The petitioner asserts that the impugned communication is in contravention of the amended Section 148-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Upon the insertion […]
