M/s. SPIC Jel Engineering Vs ACIT (Madras High Court) CIT (A) had gone through the agreement and the drawings, which were enclosed as annexures and found that the nature of work carried on by the assessee, as a sub-contractor, for the refinery shut down clearly comes within the scope of foreign project, more specifically, assembly […]
A. Sridevi Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the original return filed by the assessee did not reflect the subject matter income, namely, the advance made by the assessee to the said Nagarajan of a sum of Rs.2.75 crores. When the earlier reopening proceedings was initiated with issuance of notice under section 148, the assessee […]
The word reasonable has in law prima facie meaning of reasonable in regard to those circumstances of which the person concerned is called upon to act reasonably knows or ought to know as to what was reasonable. It may be unreasonable to give an exact definition of the word reasonable.
In the present cases on hand, the request made by the writ petitioner had been complied with and the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment had been communicated to the writ petitioner. The said propositions are very well recognised by the Supreme Court of India in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Thus the very provision stating that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons does not mean that the same should be communicated along with the notice itself.
High Court held that Section 111(m) of Customs Act can only be invoked if goods do not correspond in respect of value or any other particular with the Entry made under the Act
M/s. Vedanta Limited Vs. Union of India (Madras High Court) Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner seeking inter-alia that the conditions S.No. 2(c) of Notification No 79/2017-Customs dated 13th October, 2017 is inter alia arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and quash the same. that paragraph 1 of […]
CIT Vs D. Harindran (Madras High Court) The learned Appellate Tribunal held that the respondent assessee had furnished all details of sale and purchase of the Injambakkam property and had claimed deduction under Section 54/54F of the 1961 Act. After careful perusal and analysis of Section 271(1)(c) of the 1961 Act, the Appellate Tribunal found, […]
When a notice under section 263 dealt with several issues, which were not subject-matter of re-assessment proceedings, then, two years period contemplated under section 263(2) would begin to run from date of original assessment and not from date of re-assessment, CIT issued notice under section 263 from date of re-assessment, therefore, the same lacked jurisdiction as it was hit by limitation, thus, the notice was quashed.
Mathumitha Ramesh Vs The Chief Health Officer (Madras High Court) In the present case, the hospital in which the petitioner had given birth to a child had certified that the petitioner herein had delivered an alive girl on 23.04.2017 at 10.47 a.m. at Cethar Hospital, Trichy. The petitioner herein had also filed an affidavit before the authorities that the child was born from her womb. In the affidavit filed before this Court, the petitioner had clearly stated that she got pregnant through “intrauterine insemination” through which, she delivered […]
Kalanithi Maran Vs. UOI (Madras High Court) In the absence of any material, 2nd respondent should not have come to conclusion that assessee was Principal Officer. Unless the 2nd respondent makes out a prima facie case against petitioner of his liability and obligation as Principal Officer in day-to-day affairs of the company as Chairman-cum-Managing Director […]
