The Court rejected the challenge to the search conducted under Section 132 and upheld the legality of the search proceedings. It, however, permitted affected petitioners to pursue compensation before the appropriate forum regarding the handling of a medical emergency during the search.
The Madras High Court held that courts are empowered under Section 73 of the Evidence Act to compare disputed and admitted signatures without necessarily requiring expert evidence. It restored the Trial Courts decree after finding the comparison legally valid.
The Madras High Court held that although execution of the promissory note was admitted, the plaintiff failed to prove that consideration had actually passed. It confirmed dismissal of the money recovery suit.
The Madras High Court directed unblocking of the electronic credit ledger upon deposit of Rs. 5 lakh and ordered adjudication of the DRC-01 notice on merits within a stipulated period.
The Madras High Court held that delayed transfer of seized documents under Section 132(9A) did not invalidate notices issued under Section 153A. It ruled that the statutory time limit is directory and the assessment proceedings can continue.
Smt. Pavithra Sugichandran Vs Office of the DCIT (Madras High Court) The Madras High Court considered six writ petitions challenging assessment orders for Assessment Years (AYs) 2015-16 to 2020-21. The petitioner’s husband, a director of Gateway Office Parks Limited (GOPL), faced allegations of siphoning company funds, leading to a search and seizure operation. Materials allegedly […]
The Madras High Court upheld the blocking of ITC under Rule 86A after finding that the Revenue had recorded adequate material supporting its reasons to believe the transactions were fraudulent. The Court also directed the Department to complete the consequential proceedings expeditiously.
The Madras High Court held that the tax authorities failed to examine the assessee’s request to consider exemption under the correct statutory provision after a bona fide error. It set aside the orders and directed a fresh assessment.
The Madras High Court held that penalty cannot be imposed when the entire turnover is disclosed and the incorrect classification arose from a bona fide belief. The Court upheld the deletion of penalty as there was no evidence of tax evasion or mala fide intention.
The Madras High Court held that a cash loan advanced in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act remains legally recoverable. It ruled that the breach may attract statutory penalties but does not invalidate the underlying transaction or bar recovery through a civil suit.
