Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. (TANGEDCO) Vs Principal Commissioner (Madras High Court) The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order-in Original passed by the respondent on 15.09.2018. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has not submitted their explanation or defence statement and requested time […]
The provisions of Section 42 can only be invoked in a situation where the mismatch is on account of the error in the database of the revenue or a mistake that has been occasioned at the end of the revenue. In a case where the claim of ITC by an assessee is erroneous, as in this case, then the question of Section 42 does not arise at all, since it is not the case of mismatch, one of wrongful claim of ITC. As far as the levy of interest on belated cash remittance is concerned, it is compensatory and mandatory and the levy is upheld to this extent.
The petitioner has imported a prestigious costly Car from England. But, unfortunately not paid the Entry tax as per the Statutes. He filed a writ petition in order to avoid payment of Entry tax for the Car imported from England. The petitioner, who is a reputed Cine Actor, is expected to pay the tax promptly and punctually.
The Hon’ble High Court, Madras noted that the summon were issued to the Petitioner instead of the counsel for the Petitioner (in whose name vakalatnama was given). Thus, there is a possibility that the Petitioner would not have informed about the summons to their counsel regarding the personal hearing and the same resulted in passing of the Impugned order without hearing the learned counsel of the Petitioner.
Karti P. Chidambaram Vs Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation) (Madras High Court) All these writ petitions are filed, challenging the Show Cause Notices issued under Section 153C of the Act. The procedures for assessment / reassessment are yet to commence. The petitioners are expected to avail the opportunity and defend their case in the […]
When the Commission itself categorically made a finding that it was not possible to settle the matter and documents and evidences were to be examined by the Adjudicating Authority, then there was no much scope for the High Court to interfere with the orders passed and by sending the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority, assessee would also get an opportunity to produce all the documents and evidences to establish his case. Thus, sssessee had not established any acceptable reasons for the purpose of interfering with the order passed by the Settlement Commission.
Charity is clearly defined as relief of the poor, education, yoga, medical relief, preservation of environment, etc., Thus public charitable trust donating to activities other than education cannot be denied exemption u/s. 11 of the Act. Therefore, the conclusion of the Assessing Officer is totally unwarranted.
Akshaya Aqua Farms Vs Designated Committee (Madras High Court) The petitioner challenges order passed by the first respondent, the Designated Committee rejecting its application under the Sabka Viswas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme. The order is a one liner, which simply says ‘Dear Taxpayer, your SVLDRS Form for the ARN No LD1112190001929 has been rejected.’ No […]
M/s. NCR Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Madras High Court) The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to scrutinize the processes through which a decision is taken by the competent authority, by following the procedures as contemplated, but […]
McKinsey Global Service India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) 6. The contention of the petitioner is that the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, re-opening of assessment proceedings in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd., Vs. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) has not been complied […]
