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

15,824 rulings

  1. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Apr 2021
    The conditions imposed in all the earlier stay orders shall remain intact. Both the parties shall make endeavour for early disposal of quantum appeal.

    Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Private Limited Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29462 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  2. Madras High Court · 05 Apr 2021
    Assessee directed the landowner to pay the amount due on surrender of tenancy rights to the builder and hence does not result in exchange of assets. Therefore, depreciation on the said property is allowed.

    Areva T & D India Ltd Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29461 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 28

  3. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Apr 2021
    The addition has been confirmed in the absence of evidence from the assessee but this is not a case which would warrant levy of penalty either for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

    Mrs. Kavita Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29460 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)

  4. Madras High Court · 22 Jun 2022
    Where the entire tax liability was paid to the Government, and there was no loss to the exchequer, allowing the case to continue after a lapse of 11 years would be abuse of process of court.

    Dharampal R.Pandia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29459 (HC-MADRAS)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 22 Jun 2022
    In the guise of consistency, it can never be held that shares are intangible asset on which depreciation can be allowed u/s 32(1)(ii).

    Sanjana Cryogenics Storages Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29458 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  6. Karnataka High Court · 09 Apr 2021
    Language in Secs. 194C/J/H/I mandates deduction of tax at source by a person who makes the payment.

    Toyota Kirloskar Motor (P) Ltd Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29451 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 09 Apr 2021
    Since the dividend income would be exempt in the hands of the assessee in terms of Sec. 10(34) r.w.s. 115-O, there would not be any requirement to file Income Tax Return for the assessee.

    Liston Investment Ltd Vs ITO-12(3)(3)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29450 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 10(34)

  8. Madras High Court · 09 Apr 2021
    Since the quantum of interest charged under Section 234-D of the Income Tax Act in the present case is lesser than Rs.50,00,000/- as stated in the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Tax Case Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

    S.Duraipandi & S.Thalavaipandian Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29449 (HC-MADRAS)

  9. Kerala High Court · 08 Apr 2021
    Culpable mental state presumed u/s 278E would come into play only in a prosecution for any offence, but such presumption can be applied only when basic ingredient for constituting an offence is established.

    Forzza Projects Private Limited Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29448 (HC-KERALA) · Section 276C(2)

  10. ITAT Delhi · 09 Apr 2021
    Even as per the amended provisions of Sec.254(2A), the assessee has paid more than 50% of the total demand except for AY 2014-15 which can be adjusted with the extra amount deposited by the assessee.

    Microsoft India (R & D) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29447 (ITAT-DELHI)

  11. ITAT Allahabad · 07 Apr 2021
    Information discovered during course of search, if capable of generating the satisfaction for issuing notice u/s 158BD, cannot become altogether irrelevant for further action.

    Manorama Devi Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29446 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD) · Section 158BD

  12. ITAT Chennai · 07 Apr 2021
    The payment made by the assessee is in the nature of royalty as defined under Explanation 2(1) to Section 9(1)(vi) and liable for TDS u/s 195.

    Ambika Cotton Mills Ltd Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29445 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 195

  13. ITAT Delhi · 09 Apr 2021
    Section 54F(1) is a mandatory and substantive provision while section 54F(4) is only a procedural section.

    Ashok Kumar Wadhwa Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29444 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 09 Apr 2021
    Where, procedural rules result in miscarriage or travesty of its purpose, such rules sometimes have to be passed over in the larger interest of justice.

    Jaykrishna Dharmeshbhai Pathak Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29443 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  15. Gujarat High Court · 06 Apr 2021
    In absence of primary facts with regard to source of investment, Revenue has rightly recorded that the assessee has not furnished details with regard to the source of investment and hence the unexplained investment chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

    Ardent Ventures LLP Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29442 (HC-GUJARAT)

  16. ITAT Delhi · 21 Jun 2022
    It is a case of simple clerical error and there is no case of contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.

    Ceramic Tableware Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29441 (ITAT-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Chennai · 21 Jun 2022
    The assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and PCIT erred in revising the assessment order.

    Coimbatore Vaiyapuri Maathesh Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29440 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 270A

  18. ITAT Jaipur · 21 Jun 2022
    Section 50 inapplicable on sale of building from discontinued business which was held by the Assessee as investments.

    Goverdhan Prasad Singhal Vs The DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29439 (ITAT-JAIPUR)

  19. Supreme Court · 20 Jun 2022
    Jurisdictional error is distinguishable from an error of law/fact within the jurisdiction and the latter is rectifiable within the statutory framework.

    GIAN Castings Private Limited Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29432 (SC)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Jun 2022
    Even if the interest income is connected with the Assessee’s PE, it can only be brought to tax in India when the it is directly or indirectly attributable to the PE.

    Marubeni Corporation, Japan Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 29425 (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.