Search Results For: Madras High Court


COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 279(2) Compounding of offenses: The fact that the assessee has been convicted of an offense does not mean that the application for compounding of the offense is not maintainable. Under the guidelines, the competent authority has to examine the merits of the case and decide whether there is a case for compounding. There are no fetters on the powers of the competent authority under the guidelines. An appeal filed against a conviction is a "proceeding" for s. 279(2).

The power of compounding is exercisable when proceedings are pending. In the case on hand, the sentence imposed on the petitioner has been suspended by the Appellate Court and the appeal is still pending. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether that conviction by the Criminal Court should be the only reason for rejecting the petitioner’s application for compounding the offence. Clause 4.4 of the guidelines states that cases not to be compounded. It commences with a non obstante clause stating that notwithstanding anything contained in the guidelines, the category of cases mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) should normally not be compounded. Thus, the guidelines does not specifically place an embargo on the competent authority to consider the application for compounding merely on the ground when the assessee has been convicted by a court of law

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: August 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 26, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer to gain popularity and publicity and attract more clients amounts to an unethical practice of soliciting work and is in violation of the Code of Conduct. The Media should not publish the names of the advocates who appeared in any case as it is an indirect method of soliciting work or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates. The Media should also not publish the names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required

Often times, we have been noticing that the Print and Electronic Media is carrying on publication of the names of legal practitioners as well as the names of the Judges of the High Court concerned, who dealt with particular cases, publication of names of practitioners who may have appeared for one party or the other in a particular case can lead to an indirect method of soliciting or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates. We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Administration) of this Bench to immediately circulate instructions to all Print, Electronic and Media Houses not to publish the names of the practitioners as part of news item

COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 2, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 4, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: -
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, and interest accruing thereon, is to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and does not have the character of "income". If there is a conflict between a social welfare legislation and a taxation legislation, the social welfare legislation will prevail since it subserves larger public interest. CBDT Circular dated 14.10.2011 is not good law

While going through the said provisions of law, one comes to the inescapable conclusion that the mandate of the said provisions does not apply to the accident claim cases and the compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be said to be taxable income. The compensation is awarded in lieu of death of a person or bodily injury suffered in a vehicular accident, which is damage and not income. The Circular, dated 14.10.2011, issued by the Income Tax Authorities, whereby deduction of income Tax has been ordered on the award amount and interest accrued on the deposits made under the orders of the Court in Motor Accident Claims Cases, is quashed

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , , ,
GENRE: ,
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: January 20, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Commission paid to a non-resident for services rendered outside India is not chargeable to tax in India and is not liable for TDS. Insertion of Explanation 4 to s. 9(1)(i) and Explanation 2 to s. 195(1) by FA 2012 w.r.e.f. 01.04.1962 and insertion of Explanation below s. 9 (2) by FA 2010, w.r.e.f. 01.06.1976 makes no difference to the law

The commission payments to the non-resident agents are not taxable in India, as the agents are remaining outside, services are rendered abroad and payments are also made abroad. The contention of the Revenue that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon G.E.India Technology’s case, cited supra, in view of insertion of Explanation 4 to Section 9 (1) (i) of the Act with corresponding introduction of Explanation 2 to Section 195 (1) of the Act, both by the Finance Act, 2012, with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962 is not correct. When the transaction does not attract the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, then there is no question of applying Explanation 4 to Section 9 of the Act

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: April 22, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 28(iv): The waiver by the lender of even the principal amount of loan constitutes a "benefit" arising from business and is assessable to tax as income. Logitronics 333 ITR 386 (Del), Rollatainers 339 ITR 54 (Del), Mahindra & Mahindra 261 ITR 501 (Bom) and Iskraemeco Regent 196 TM 103 (Mad) not followed

In our considered view, the waiver of a portion of the loan would certainly tantamount to the value of a benefit. This benefit may not arise from “the business” of the assessee. But, it certainly arises from “business”. The absence of the prefix “the” to the word “business” makes a world of difference

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 1, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 10, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2010-11
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 80-IA: As CBDT's Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016 is in line with Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills 340 ITR 477 (Mad) the Dept should not agitate the controversy whether deduction u/s 80IA is allowable without setting off losses/unabsorbed depreciation which were set off in earlier years against other business income

On the basis of the decision in Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (340 ITR 477), the Central Board of Direct Taxes has issued Circular No.1/ 2016 dated 15.2.2016. The CBDT has clarified that an assessee who is eligible to claim deduction u/s 80IA has the option to choose the initial/first year from which it may desire the claim of deduction for ten consecutive years, out of a slab of fifteen (or twenty) years, as prescribed under that Sub-Section. It is clarified that once such initial assessment year has been opted for by the assessee, he shall be entitled to claim deduction u/s 801A for ten consecutive years beginning from the year in respect of which he has exercised such option subject to the fulfillment of conditions prescribed in the section. Hence, the term ‘initial assessment year’ would mean the first year opted for by the assessee for claiming deduction u/s 801A. However, the total number of years for claiming deduction should not transgress the prescribed slab of fifteen or twenty years, as the case may be and the period of claim should be availed in continuity

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 11, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 27, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2000-01
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 158BD: Issue of notice u/s 158BD to the non-searched party has to be within the two years period given to the AO for completion of block assessment u/s 158BE(1)

The AO passed an order u/s 158BC in the case of Sree Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Limited. After the expiry of two years, he initiated proceedings u/s 158BD against the assessee. The Tribunal struck down the s. 158BD proceedings …

CIT vs. V. D. Muralidharan (Madras High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 14, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 2(47)(vi): A Power of Attorney which does not enable enjoyment of property does not result in a "transfer". CBDT Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted

(i) There is no transfer to or enabling enjoyment of property in favour of the assessee in any manner and therefore, sub-clause (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act does not get attracted. Clause 21 of the power …

CIT vs. C. Sugumaran (Madras High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: November 3, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 12, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2001-2002 to 2007-2008
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Admission of undisclosed income by assessee constitutes good evidence. Loose sheets found during search can be relied upon

(i) With regard to the undisclosed income of Rs.52,73,920/- supported by printouts, in the sworn statement dated 29.8.2006, the assessee says that he had separate business income which was not included in his income tax returns. Therefore, admission of undisclosed …

B. Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT (Madras High Court) Read More »

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: September 15, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: November 7, 2014 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 54EC: Assessee is eligible for deduction of Rs.1 Crore in respect of investment of Rs.50 Lakhs made in two different financial years. Proviso to s. 54EC seeking to curb this has effect from AY 2015-16

(i) On a plain reading of Section 54EC(1) of the Act it is clear that it restricts the time limit for the period of investment after the property has been sold to six months. There is no cap on the …

CIT vs. C. Jaichander (Madras High Court) Read More »