Madras HC: Share allotment against pre-existing liability isn’t unexplained cash credit u/s 68, especially when no cash is involved.
Referring to a circular issued by the CBDT in Circular No.16/2015 dated 06.10.2015, held that film production expenses of abandoned films should be treated as revenue expenditure. This decision was followed in the case of Asia Power Projects P Ltd. (supra).
Bhagavan Das Dhananjaya Das Vs Union of India (Madras High Court) (a) When the New Act 2013 came into effect from 1.4.2014, the second respondent herein has wrongly given retrospective effect and erroneously disqualified the petitioner-directors from 1.11.2016 itself before the deadline commenced wrongly fixing the first financial year from 1.4.2013 to 31.3.2014. (b) By virtue of the […]
These appeals are against an order dated 31-3-2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Bench, Chennai, allowing the appeals, being I.T.A.Nos.262 and 263/Mds/2015, in relation to the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2012-2013 filed by the respondent Revenue and restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Sections 271E and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act).
CIT Vs M/s. Radaan Media Works (Madras High Court) Department fairly admitted that the brand equity of a sum of Rs.75 lakhs valued at a sum of Rs.75 lakhs would be an intangible right coming within the purview of ‘business or commercial rights’ of a similar nature. He also brought to our notice the decision of this High Court […]
Champa Devi Vs Tax Recovery Officer (TRO) (Madras High Court) In the instant case, the respondent has issued the impugned notice and the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court and filed this writ petition. In my considered view, this writ petition is not the proper remedy, which the petitioner should have availed. In this regard, it is relevant […]
Without adjudicating the said issue, the second respondent cannot proceed to recover the amount, that too, by issuing a notice against a dead person. Hence, the impugned notice is held to be not sustainable in law.
Dr. Prathap Chandra Reddy Vs Income Tax Settlement Commission (Madras High Court) Settlement Commission did not conduct an enquiry to satisfy itself that the stand taken by the PCIT by way of a supplementary report could be a valid ground to come to a conclusion that the assessee had made a false claim on the refund due. The […]
M/s. 3E Infotech Vs Customs (Madras High Court) we are of the opinion, that when service tax is paid by mistake a claim for refund cannot be barred by limitation, merely because the period of limitation under Section 11B had expired. Such a position would be contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, […]
Pothys Vs. Principal Chief Commissioner (Madras High Court) i. The respective Commissioner of GST and Central excise are directed to appoint Nodal Officer/Officers for the State of Tamil Nadu, if not already appointed, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and ii. The petitioners/assessees are […]
