Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 13 2022 To June 19 2022

A weekly round-up of important cases from Madras High Court and its subordinate courts. Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 NOMINAL INDEX A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 The Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr v. M/s. Roca Bathroom Products Private Limited, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 252 Chandrasegaram Vijayasundaram and others v. Principal Commissioner (Revision Application) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 253 S. Nalini v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 254 S. Manjula v. G. Shoba and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 255 Tvt.LAF Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Commercial Tax, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 256Udhaya Kumar v. The State and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 257 REPORTS 1. Settled Seniority Cannot Be Unsettled After Lapse Of Several Years: Madras High Court Dismisses Inspector's Plea For Retrospective Promotion Case Title: A Shanmugam v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 248 While dismissing a Police Inspector's plea for retrospective promotion, the Madras High Court has observed that entertaining such belated claims will result in unsettling the settled position. The court reiterated that settled positions cannot be unsettled after a lapse of many years. Finding the petition to be devoid of any merits, a bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed as follows: "The employees, who have slept over their rights, cannot wake up one fine morning and knock the doors of the Court for the purpose of redressal of their grievances, which all are otherwise lapsed on account of efflux of time" 2.Smartha Brahmins Not A Religious Denomination, Madras High Court Case Title: Smartha Barhmins living in the State of Tamil Nadu practicing and propagating the Religious Philosophy and tents of Advaitha Philosophy through P.S Sundaram and others v. Union of India and others Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 249 The Madras High Court recently observed that the Smartha Brahmins were just a caste/community without any peculiarity specifically attributable to them that distinguished them from other Brahmins of the State of Tamil Nadu. Thus, they could not be identified as a religious denomination and were not entitled to benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution. Justice R Vijayakumar of the Madurai Bench was considering an application made by some members belonging to the Smartha Brahmin community claiming minority status for an institution run by them. Observing that the appellants had failed to establish that they constitute a denomination as Smartha Brahmins in the state of Tamil Nadu, the court held that the suit was mainly filed only to wriggle out of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Recognised Private Schools Regulations Act 1973 by invoking the benefits under Article 26 of the Constitution. 3. Order Of ITAT Is Based On Evidence, Findings Based On Facts, Madras High Court Dismisses Tax Appeal Case Title: M/s Ankit Ispat Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 The Madras High Court recently dismissed a tax appeal observing that there were no substantial question of law arisen for consideration. The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad were of the opinion that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was based on the evidence adduced before the same. "Such well-considered findings of the appellate authorities do not warrant any interference at the hands of this court", it observed. 4. Royalty Income Should Be Excluded From Business Profits For Calculating Deductions U/S 80HHC Of Income Tax Act: Madras High Court Case Title: M/s. Fenner (India) Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 251 The Madras High Court recently upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal directing the assessing officer to exclude the royalty income from the business profits for the purpose of calculation of deductions under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act. Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad observed that the appellant could not produce concrete evidence to assert that the royalty income received from a subsidiary company was related to export business. Thus, the decision of the tribunal did not warrant any interference. 5. Period Of...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 13 2022 To June 19 2022

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 13 2022 To June 19 2022

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers