TVS Motor Company Ltd. Vs Asstt. Commr. of CGST & CE (Madras High Court) The respondent states that the impugned order is only a show cause notice (SCN). This Court is unable to agree with the said stand taken by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Revenue, as a show cause notice cannot […]
C. Aryama Sundaram Vs CIT (Madras High Court) What has to be adjusted and/or set off against the capital gain is, the cost of the residential house that is purchased or constructed. Section 54(1) of the said Act is specific and clear.It is the cost of the new residential house and not just the cost […]
M/s.V.R.Global Energy Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) When there was no cash involved in the transaction of allotment of shares, provisions of Section 68 of the said Act treating it as unexplained cash credit are not attracted. Learned counsel for the appellant assessee emphatically argued that inasmuch as the source of credit in […]
The short question in this appeal is whether the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the sole ground that the appellant had a right of reply to the show cause notice. The answer to the aforesaid question has to be in the negative, for the reasons discussed hereinbelow.
Alamelu Veerappan Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Admittedly, the limitation period for issuance of notice for reopening expired on 31.3.2017. The impugned notice was issued on 30.3.2017 in the name of the dead person. On being intimated about the death, the Department sent the notice to the petitioner – his spouse to participate in the […]
PCIT Vs M/s. Sakthi Sugers Ltd. (Madras High Court) Issue- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in allowing the rental income of the assessee as ‘business income’ instead of ‘income from house property‘ when the principal object of the assessee company is not letting out of properties ? When this matter came up for hearing on 08.12.2017, we posed a […]
In view of the GST regime and the IT platform being new, it may not be justifiable to expect the users to back up digital evidences. Even under the old taxation laws, it is a settled legal position that substantive input credits cannot be denied or altered on account of procedural grounds.
If the view taken by the AO was a plausible view and if it results in loss of revenue, it could not be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue for the purpose of invoking the power under section 263.
Sanmar Speciality Chemicals Ltd. Vs ITO (Madras High Court) Tribunal has no power under the Income Tax Act to enhance the assessment in an appeal. Equally, it cannot be done on an order of remand being passed by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we opine that it is sufficient to clarify the legal position as held by the Honble Supreme Court […]
Madras HC: Share allotment against pre-existing liability isn’t unexplained cash credit u/s 68, especially when no cash is involved.
