Madras High Court addresses penalty proceedings in Annamalai Bus Transports vs. PCIT for AY 2018-19. No cash transaction, emphasizes fair assessment.
Madras High Court clarifies charge priority in City Union Bank vs. Tax Recovery Officer case. First charge holder’s dues have precedence over tax recovery.
This HC directs CIT (A) to consider Appellant’s grounds & pass Order on merits: read our blog post to learn more about this Madras High Court judgment!
Madras High Court held that Advance Ruling holding that services of loading, unloading, packing etc., rendered in relation to the wheat imported is not entitled to exemption in terms of S.No.54(e) of Notification No.12 of 2017 is unsustainable.
Madras High Court held that refund of inverted duty structure available u/s 54(3)(ii) of the GST Act even when the supplier has inadvertently charged higher rate i.e. 18% instead of applicable rate i.e. 5%.
Madras High Court held that reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act beyond the period of four years unjustified as all the particulars with regard to sale of agricultural land was disclosed before AO in full extent.
Explore the detailed analysis of Antony Alphonse Kevin Alphonse vs ITO case at Madras High Court. Uncover the assessment challenges, legal proceedings, and the court’s decision.
Madras High Court directs Customs authorities to review representation of Jineshwar Enterprise regarding seized imported goods. Know details of court order.
Madras High Court held that section 245C(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as amended by the Finance Act, 2021) is read down by removing the retrospective last date of 1st date of February, 2021 as 31st day of March, 2021. All applications even in respect of cases arising between 01.02.2021 to 31.03.2021 shall be deemed to be pending application for purpose of consideration by Interim Board for settlement.
Madras High Court held that refund cannot be denied as refund application under section 54(1) of CGST Act was made within a period of limitation, however, supportive documents were submitted at the time of personal hearing. Notably, the time limit fixed u/s. 54 (1) is directory in nature and it is not mandatory.
