Manonmaniam Sundaranar University Vs Joint Director (GST Intelligence) (Madras High Court) The University is renting the property to other institutions and collecting rent from them. Therefore, the second respondent was justified in raising demand for the said service. However, there is no justification in levying penalty. The assessee is not a private entity. The respondents […]
CIT Vs Y.V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) The Tribunal, while allowing the assessee’s appeal, observed that the assessment order was passed after making full verification and the order of the CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial […]
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. Kamla Town Trust reported in (1996) 84 Taxman 248 (SC) held that the rectification shall not have retrospective effect and would operate prospectively from the date when the rectification saw the light of the day.
Proposal to levy penalty on the ground that assessee- dealer purchased SAP software at concessional rate of tax against C Form Declarations without having included the same in the registration certificate issued under the CST Act was made by an officer, who was not the officer, who passed the order dated 30.1.2014, as there had been a transfer of the officer and the new officer took over charge thus, the defect, which had occurred by levying penalty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing would go to the root of the very levy itself, therefore, the assessment orders was remanded to AO for a fresh consideration.
CIT Vs Y. V. Subramaniam (Madras High Court) On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal has categorically held that the order passed by CIT is based on no reason and he has simply given an abrupt finding that the assessment order is erroneous. Further, the Tribunal, […]
Ram Auto Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes & Central Excise (High Court Madras) In this case The petitioner had filed FORM GST TRAN-1 in time. His only grievance is that he is being denied the benefit of input tax credit for having entered the details in wrong column. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew […]
The State of Tamil Nadu Vs M. Salai Gayathri (Madras High Court) The issue involved in these batch of Writ Appeals lies in a narrow compass viz., Is a person, who could only perform a regular function by wearing glasses would become disentitle to a post he can otherwise perform, by making an assessment qua […]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs Banu Constructions (Madras High Court) FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT The argument on behalf of the appellant is short and sweet: that the first principles of arbitration law do not permit an unreasoned order to be justified by supplementing reasons therefor upon looking into the evidence or […]
H. Bhima Ram Vs Principal Secretary (Madras High Court) To opt for publication of an intended acquisition in little known newspapers may amount to a fraud on the statute, and a fraud on the right to property of the citizens. Of all the four citations herein quoted, the earliest judgment delivered was on 30.06.2000 [ […]
(i) Whether the gain on sale of stock options in USA that were given to the Indian employee by M/s.Google Inc., USA amounts to perquisites taxable under the Income Tax Act, 1961 or not?; (ii) Whether the amounts shown in Form-16 as Tax Deducted at Source on such perquisites would be the exclusive gain made by the Assessee on such stock options issued by the Holding Company in USA is sufficient to hold that it is taxable under the head ‘salary’ as ‘perquisites’ with reference to the provisions under Section 5(1) (c) and 6(6) (a) read with Section 17?;
