Exemption notification has to be interpreted stricto sensu. No external aids can be brought in to interpret an exemption notification. If assessees, who claim benefit of exemption notification, fail to fulfil any one of the conditions contained therein, the benefit cannot be extended.
Watanmal Boolchand & Co. Ltd. Vs Assistant Director of Income Tax (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Reassessment against a Hongkong-based company, Watanmal Boolchand was justified as there was a prima facie the case of ‘Business Connection’ of assessee-company in India. Held: Assessee-company was incorporated outside India under the laws of Hong Kong. One of the group […]
Sri Muniappa Steels Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court) GST: Assessment order passed without supplying the third party evidence relied on: Set aside by the Madras HC on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. An assessment order passed under the GST laws, based on a statement given by a third party dealer for […]
Aircel Cellular Limited Vs DCIT (Madras High Court) Legal provisions involved As per first proviso to Section 147 where assessment has already been made under Section 143(3) and assessee had disclosed truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment then AO cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 beyond 4 years from end of […]
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Once a resolution plan was duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the […]
Considering the fact that the petitioner has also not been able to utilize the credit of duty under the provisions of GST which came to be effected from 01.07.2017, legitimate export incentives cannot be denied to the petitioner. I find no merits in denying the benefit of refund claim filed by the petitioner under Rule 5 of the CENVAT Rules, 2004. The respondent shall therefore refund the amount to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Innomit Mineral Projects Pvt Ltd. Vs Additional Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) The petitioner appears to be a victim of the chinese exporter. The petitioner had made a victim of fraud. The petitioner therefore, seek refund of the customs duty paid at the time of filing of Bill of Entry under the self assessment […]
Tatia Sky Line & Health Farms Ltd. Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Expenses incurred by assessee for Public Issue was not allowable as revenue expenditure as assessee miserably failed to establish the tenability and truthfulness of its claim that the expenditure was revenue in nature. Held: Assessee, a public limited company, was in the […]
Carbon Credit was not an offshoot of business, but an offshoot of environmental concerns. No asset was generated in the course of business, but it was generated due to environmental concerns. Therefore, income from sale of carbon credits was to be considered as capital receipt and not liable for tax under any head of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
S. R. Trust Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Search proceedings had been rightly initiated as assessee had nothing to fear, they could as well place all the materials before AO for consideration and more so, the jurisdictional facts exist for assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A as well as Section 153C of the Act. […]
