Search
Advanced Search Search with field filters
/adv
Navigation
Home Go to homepage
/home
Direct Tax Income Tax resources
GST GST Acts, Rules & Case Laws
Company Law Companies Act & SEBI
Due Date Tracker Statutory compliance deadlines
/due
Due Date Calendar Calendar view of compliance deadlines
Daily Digest Today's tax updates and articles
/digest
Landmark Rulings

Direct Tax landmark rulings

15,819 rulings

  1. ITAT Delhi · 27 Aug 2022
    The commission so received is not royalty but FTS since the Assessee was involved in rendition of managerial services to SIPL.

    Springer Verlag GmbH Vs The D.C.I.T

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29962 (ITAT-DELHI)

  2. ITAT Hyderabad · 27 Aug 2022
    Payment made towards data storage services are not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Section 9(1)(vi) and accordingly TDS liability under Section 195 does not arise.

    Reasoning Global EApplication Ltd Vs Dy. C.I.T.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29961 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 27 Aug 2022
    Powers under Section 251 are wide but cannot go to the extent of displacing powers under Section 147, 148 and 263.

    C.N. Babu Vs ITO

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29960 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  4. Bombay High Court · 27 Aug 2022
    Once an enquiry is conducted during assessment proceeding, insufficient or inadequate enquiry or improper enquiry could not be a ground to invoke power under Section 263 and this case is not a case of no enquiry.

    Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalp Ltd Vs The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-14

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29959 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 263

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 29 Aug 2022
    Disabling provision of Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) will not be attracted on CSR expenditure incurred on a voluntary basis and for the purpose of promotion of business and are allowable deduction under Section 37.

    JSW Cement Ltd Vs Addl.CIT/Dy. ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  6. ITAT Chennai · 26 Aug 2022
    Nature of payment which has been claimed to be compensation for vacating land and handing over peaceful possession, is nothing but compensation made to the self.

    Jayapal Sanjay. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29957 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Aug 2022
    Payment under consideration cannot be considered to be FTS as it is not related to managerial, technical or consultancy services and even AE does not provided any service to the Assessee.

    Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29956 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  8. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Aug 2022
    The transaction involved is free sale and amount paid to AE for supply of Red Hat Subscription is the price of maintaining and support services and not the price for license of software.

    Red Hat India Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  9. Supreme Court · 25 Aug 2022
    There is nothing on record to suggest that the requirement of law that the bad debt was written-off as irrecoverable in the Assessee’s accounts for the previous year had been satisfied.

    Khyati Realtors Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 6

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29952 (SC)

  10. Delhi High Court · 24 Aug 2022
    If Assessee is able to satisfy the Revenue that the services rendered in the relevant AY were similar to the services rendered in the subsequent AY, the reassessment proceeding would be closed.

    Ernst And Young U.S. LLP Vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29944 (HC-DELHI)

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Aug 2022
    Revenue’s suspicion on impugned transaction, just because HRPL is an entity associated to the Assessee which derived substantial return on the option deposits from this arrangement, is factually perverse.

    K. Raheja Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29943 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  12. Supreme Court · 23 Aug 2022
    The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 (2016 Act) prescribes substantive provisions and is not merely procedural.

    Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29936 (SC)

  13. Supreme Court · 22 Aug 2022
    Assessee is not permitted to file the review on whether the Assessee can be treated at par with the Central/State Government employees or not for the purpose of Section 17.

    Indian Institute Of Science Vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29929 (SC)

  14. ITAT Hyderabad · 22 Aug 2022
    Limitation for rectification under Section 154(7) is 4 years even for intimation under Section 143(1).

    Zintec Software (P) Ltd Vs Dy. C.I.T.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29928 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)

  15. Delhi High Court · 20 Aug 2022
    The ground of rejection of Assesse's declaration under the Act is not valid and the Revenue is directed to re-examine the declaration and proceed on merits.

    Kapri International (P) Ltd. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29923 (HC-DELHI)

  16. ITAT Mumbai · 20 Aug 2022
    The concept of ‘ready to use’ is not applicable in the facts of the present case, since Assessee could not have put these 14206 units in use in the business of leasing at all.

    L&T Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29922 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  17. ITAT Pune · 20 Aug 2022
    Section 43CA and 50C are in pari materia and retrospective application of Section 50C is also applicable on Section 43CA.

    Sai Bhargavanath Infra Vs The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29921 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 43CA

  18. ITAT Bangalore · 20 Aug 2022
    Notice under Section 148 can be issued even if there is a time limit for issuance of notice under Section 143(2) has not been expired in pursuance of return filed under Section 139 for completing regular assessment.

    C. Gangadhara Murthy Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29920 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  19. ITAT Delhi · 20 Aug 2022
    The Revenue erred in passing assessment order based on standalone basis despite aware of the amalgamation while making addition.

    Rohit Bal Designs Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29919 (ITAT-DELHI)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 20 Aug 2022
    We do not find any error in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the Project Completion Method followed by the Assessee for declaring income from the project under reference.

    Suratchandra B. Thakkar (HUF) Vs ACIT-30(3)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29918 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.


An unhandled error has occurred. Reload ×

Rejoining the server...

Rejoin failed... trying again in seconds.

Failed to rejoin.
Please retry or reload the page.

The session has been paused by the server.

Failed to resume the session.
Please retry or reload the page.