L. Sivaramakrishnan Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) In this Even the C.B.I. has not found that Sivaramakrishnan benefitted financially from the criminal activity of fudging records. Of course, these findings of the C.B.I. are not binding on the Enforcement Directorate, but, this Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to this, especially in the light of […]
Dilliraj Vs Deputy Director (Madras High Court) HC held that we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the Enforcement Directorate that the salaries and perquisites that were paid to Dilliraj (A.1) while he was in employment with FLCI would amount to proceeds of crime and any property purchased with that would stand tainted. […]
R. Viswanathan Vs Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement (Madras High Court) From a reading of Section 2(u) of the PML Act which defines the expression “proceeds of crime”, it is limpid that the profit derived or obtained must be a result of a criminal activity which relates to a schedule offence. Even if we take […]
High Court held that even if the assessee is engaged in the category of activity of ‘object of general public utility’, they are entitled for registration under Section 12A. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the assessee can claim registration under Section 12A by categorising the activity of the assessee as ‘object of general public utility’.
In the present case, the petitioner has, admittedly, remitted amounts of Rs.66.05 and Rs.16.58 lakhs as deposits even prior to the issuance of show cause notice. However, the petitioner has specifically demarcated the amount of Rs.66.05 lakhs as towards tax and Rs.16.58 lakhs as towards interest.
The Daily Thanthi Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) High Court held that amount deposited during the pendency of the appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has to be construed as having paid ‘under protest’ and has to be refunded without insisting on such importer or manufacturer satisfying the requirement of “unjust enrichment” as […]
Unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to the assessment year 1997-98 to 2001-02 can be carry forward and adjusted after the lapse of eight assessment years in view of the section 32(2) as amended by the Finance Act, 2001.
Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right ignoring the Rule 45 of the IT Rules mandating filing of e-appeal with effect from 02.3.2016 and Board Circular 20/2019 dated 26.5.2016 extending the time for filing of e-appeal only till 15.6.2016 a
Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest and salary received by the assessee from firms in which he was a partner cannot be construed as business income u/s. 28(v) and therefore not eligible for applying the presumptive interest rate of 8% under section 44AD of the Act?
Tmt.T.A.H.Zubaida Ummal Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Conclusion: Where the mortgage had been created by the owner after he had acquired the property, the clearing of the mortgage by him prior to the transfer of the property would not entitle him to claim deduction under Section 48 because, in such a case he did not […]
