Writ Petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the second respondent Tribunal relating to its order in ATA No. 380 (13) of 2006 dated 12.4.2010, quash the same that approves the order of the third respondent dated 29.3.2004 bearing Ref. No. CC.1(7)/TN/CBE/56709/ENF/2004 and consequently forbear EPF organisation form applying the notification of Government of India in Ministry of Labour and Employment No.GSR 346 dated 7.3.62 with effect from 23.12.2002 under the Schedule “trading and commercial” as the same is contrary to EPF Act 1952, run counter to Section 1(3) (a) and (b) of EPF Act,1952.
CIT Vs M/s Integrated Finance Co. Ltd. (Madras High Court)- The assessee is a credit institution. As a finance company engaged in hire purchase and leasing transaction, the assessee also does not deny that its activities in respect of financing, falls for consideration under sub clause (iv). The Assessing Officer has assessed the transactions relating to hire purchase financing.
APPEAL under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order dated 9.9.2003 made in ITA No.1297/Mds/96 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras ‘B’ Bench, for the assessment year 1991- 92.
Prayer: Appeal filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal “C” Bench, dated 31.12.2002, made in I.T.A No. 1890/Mds/96, under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
CIT, Tiruchy Vs P L Chemical Limited (Madras High Court)- The contract entered into led to the loss of source of income in the ordinary course of business. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, the assessee’s business hitherto till 1995 to market its products and its brand name, thus no longer available in toto, the non-compete fee thus received by the assessee, assumes the character of capital, which cannot be assessed under the provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court ruling on the applicability of Provident Fund (PF) contribution on certain allowances. Reynolds Pens India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Madras High Court)- The Madras High Court in aforesaid case has held that certain allowances such as conveyance, educational allowances, food concession, medical allowance, special holidays, night shift incentive, city compensatory allowances etc. should be treated as part of basic wages under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (‘EPF Act’.) and accordingly, provident fund contributions should be remitted on such allowances.
CIT, Chennai Vs M/s Simpson & Co. (Madras High Court)- There must be a nexus between the material at the hands of the Officer and formation of belief that there was escapement of wealth from assessment on account of the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly, all material facts. In the absence of any nexus or any one of the requirements, the reassessment proceedings could not be upheld as one falling under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act.
M/s Sundaram Fasteners Ltd Vs CIT (Madras High Court)- As far as placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax) reported in [2003] 262 ITR 278 is concerned, we do not find, the said decision, in any manner, goes against the case of the assessee. The Unit at Krishnapuram is stated to be the only unit having hot forging machine. It is stated that the assessee, based at Krishnapuram, received bolts and nuts from Padi, manufactured using cold forging. The Krishnapuram unit completes hot forging and after the process comes to Padi where there is further value addition and after assembling nuts and bolts, they are marketed.
CIT, Chennai Vs A R Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court)- The Tribunal accepted the case of the assessee based on the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Tamilnadu Electricity Board, that the windmill was commissioned on 30.09.1995.
M/s M Narayanan & Bros Vs ACIT (Madras High Court)- In the decision reported in (2006) 287 ITR 209 (P.R. Metrani Vs Commissioner of Income-Tax), dealing with the scope of Section 132(4A), the Supreme Court considered the conclusive character of the statement made in a search operation.
