Madras High Court – taxcaselaw.com

Madras H.C : No part of the consideration for sate was received by the appellant and same was directly paid to the Bank by the purchaser in discharge of the mortgage amount and therefore no capital gains arises in the hands of the appellant

High Court Of Madras D. Zeenath vs. ITO Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-1996 Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C.A No. 2582 of 2006 3rd April, 2019 Counsel appeared: Subhang Nair Assisted, Shobana Krishnan for the Appellant.: M. Swaminathan (Senior Standing Counsel) Assisted by V.Pushpa for the Respondent C. V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. The assessee has …

Madras H.C : Whether the Income Tax Law is a-political, a-religious in character, whether the character and attributes of the recipient of an income determines the taxability or the character of the receipt of income

High Court Of Madras Union Of India (Rep. By The Secretary Ministry Of Finance) And Ors. vs. The Society Of Mary Immaculate (Tamil Nadu)(Rep. By Its President) And Ors. Section 15, 192 & Section 4(3)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1922 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. Writ Appeal Nos.391 to 402, 569 to 583, 585 to …

Madras H.C : Whether the expenditure claimed by the Assessee is to be treated as Revenue Expenditure or Capital Expenditure

High Court Of Madras Hanon Automotive Systems India Private Limited (Previously Known As M/S.Visteon Automotive Systems India Private Limited) Represented By Its Authorised Signatory Mr.B. Swaminathan vs. DCIT Section 147, 148, 260A Asst. Year 2011-2012 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. W.A.Nos.830 and 835 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.6495 of 2019 14th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: N.V.Balaji …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the assessment of Rs.58,60,105/- as income of the appellant, invoking Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act?

High Court Of Madras West Asia Exports & Imports (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 23, 41, 41(1), 260A Asst. Year 2003-04 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V.Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No.302 of 2008 11th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M.Swaminathan, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …

Madras H.C : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the market value of the library materials that were available as on 01.04.1981 has to be estimated and thereafter indexation as provided u/s. 48 had to be allowed on such market value, while computing the capital gains on sale of library containing antique materials ?

High Court Of Madras Vallikannu Nagarajan And Sivagami Roja Muthiah vs. The DCIT Section 48 Asst. Year 1995-96 to 1999-2000 Dr. Vineeth Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. T.C. Nos.735 to 737 of 2009 7th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: M. Swaminathan, Standing Counsel, Premalatha, Jr. Standing. Counsel for the Respondent. DR. …

Madras H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding the amount received towards Capital Subsidy from M/s. Royal Sun and Alliance Pic, for infusion of additional capital by the appellant in the joint venture company as per the terms of Letter of Intent, dated 05.04.2000 is revenue receipt chargeable to tax?

High Court Of Madras Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 41(1)(b) Asst. Year 2002-2003 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 159 of 2009 6th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: R. Vijayaraghavan for the Appellant.: T. Ravikumar for the Respondent DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. This Tax Case …

Madras H.C : The Internal Rate Return (IRR) method is the appropriate method of income recognition in hire purchase transaction as against the Eguated Sum (ESM) method regularly followed by the Appellant

High Court Of Madras Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C. V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 158 of 2009 5th March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: R. Vijayaraghavan for the Appellant.: T.R. Ravikumar for the Respondent DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. 1. The present Appeal was admitted by the Co-ordinate …

Madras H.C : The appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Income Tax Act in respect of the liquidated damages

High Court Of Madras Infrastructure Development Finance Co. Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Section 10, 10(23G), 28, 36, 36(1), 36(1)(vii)(c), 36(1)(viia)(c), 36(1)(viii), 36(i)(viiia)(c), 80IA(4), 80-IAB(3), 80-IB(10), 115JB, 115-O, 194A Asst. Year 2002-2003 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 939 of 2008 1st March, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M/s. Farook I. …

Madras H.C : When DEPB receivable is assessed as income under u/s. 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the same has to be treated as export receipts while computing deduction u/s. 80HHC since 28(iv) was not referred to in Explanation (baa) to section 80HHC

High Court Of Madras Gold Line Exports vs. ITO Section 80HHC Asst. Year 2003-2004 Dr. Vineet Kothari & C.V. Karthikeyan, JJ. Tax Case Appeal No. 542 of 2011 15th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: M.P. Senthil Kumar for the Petitioner.: V. Pushpa, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent. DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J.: The Assessee has filed the …

Madras H.C : An application for stay of recovery of demand under Section 220(6)

High Court Of Madras Mrs. Kannammal vs. ITO Section 220(6) Asst. Year 2016-17 Dr. Anita Sumanth, J. W.P.No.3849 of 2019 and W.M.P.No.4278 of 2019 13th February, 2019 Counsel Appeared: S.Sathiyanarayanan for the Petitioner.: Jayapratap for the Respondent. ORDER Mr. Jayapratap, learned counsel for the respondent takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of both …

Tag: Madras High Court