Landmark judgment on claimed compensation & business expenditure. High Court rules against Assessee in Allu Arvind Babu vs ACIT case.
ITC Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court) Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs […]
Acme Ware Housing Private Limited Vs Principal Commissioner (Preventive) (Madras High Court) The licensee under the Bonded Warehouse Scheme acts as an Agent on behalf of the Customs Department for that purposes and the provisions of Sections 57 to 73A in Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962 read with The Warehouse (Custody and Handling […]
Mayajaal Entertainment Limited Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court) The present Appeals are squarely covered by the decision of this Court in PVR Ltd. v. CTO (W.A.No.685, 694 to to 697 decided on 15.10.20020) which dealt with the question of taxability of the Entertainment Tax on the Online Booking Charges and this Court held […]
Advantage Strategic Consulting Private Limited Vs PCIT (Madras High Court) Transfer Order passed under Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is more in the nature of an administrative order rather than quasi-judicial order and the Assessee cannot have any right to choose his Assessing Authority, as no prejudice can be said to have […]
Government Department cannot be permitted to be a voluntary litigant in the Constitutional Courts especially to challenge the orders of the learned Single Judge without any valid rhyme or reason.
Chennai Port trust was not eligible for exemption under Section 29(a) of the Urban Land Tax Act as it did not produce any evidence to prove that the Lands were owned by the Central Government and that the Madras Dock Labour Board was only the ostensible owner. Indeed, the evidence on record indicated that the Madras Dock Labour Board was both the ostensible and real owner and the Lands were assessed to urban land tax and that the Madras Dock Labour Board paid urban land tax as and when demanded. Moreover, the Board Circular dated 30.06.1976 expressly provided that lands owned by the Madras Port Trust would not be eligible for the exemption under Section 29(a).
Share Aids Private Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) The learned counsel for the Appellant/Assessee Ms. Madhupreetha Elango submitted that the if a loss is caused on the sale of the Capital Assets by the Assessee, the same should be allowed as Business Expenditure under Section 41(2) of the Act as it cannot be brought […]
A lawyer generally has no implied or apparent authority to make an admission or statement which would directly surrender or conclude the substantial legal rights of the client unless such an admission or statement is clearly a proper step in accomplishing the purpose for which the lawyer was employed
United Processors Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court) It is brought to notice by the Learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondent that the Division Bench of this Court in State of Tamil nadu -vs- Tex-in-Printers (Order dated 04.10.2013 in Tax Case (Revision) No. 49 of 2009) has reiterated that after introduction of Section […]
