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

15,829 rulings

  1. ITAT Bangalore · 28 Mar 2022
    The TDS mechanism will fail when the payees are not identifiable, however it is the responsibility of the Assessee to prove that payees are not identifiable with credible reasons, failing which Revenue would be entitled to raise demand under Section 201(1)/(1A).

    BIOCON LTD Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28712 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 40(a)(i)/(ia)

  2. Bombay High Court · 26 Mar 2022
    Since the proposed reopening was issued after the expiry of four years, Revenue has to show that there was fault on Assessee’s part to truly and fully disclose material facts required for assessment.

    Hanwant Manbir Singh Vs Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28706 (HC-BOMBAY)

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Mar 2022
    Furnishing of form No. 67 before due date of return is not a mandatory requirement.

    42 Hertz Software India Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28705 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Mar 2022
    Non-jurisdictional HC rulings do not bind ITAT on law in all the situations, particularly when Explanation below Section 149(3) was not considered by Delhi HC which has explicitly been relied upon by the Revenue in the present case.

    Mitali R. Lakhanpal Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28704 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Mar 2022
    Since there was not an iota of doubt that the material being referred by the AO for making the addition was not found and seized during search, jurisdiction assumed by the AO is invalid.

    Luxora Infrastructure Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28703 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  6. ITAT Pune · 26 Mar 2022
    No rental income can be said to have accrued to the Assessee from unsold flats either as stock in trade or under income from house property.

    KD Construction unit I Vs ITO

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28702 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 23(5)

  7. ITAT Delhi · 26 Mar 2022
    Since, the annual value determined is devoid of any rational endorsement, we hereby delete the addition made by the revenue authorities.

    Sunil Kumar Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28701 (ITAT-DELHI)

  8. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Mar 2022
    The Revenue failed to make detailed enquiries as to the fair market rates and has not made any comparables with regard to prevailing market rate

    Zee Fabrics Inc. Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28700 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  9. ITAT Delhi · 26 Mar 2022
    Linking the claim of depreciation to production in the midst of manufacture progression is against the legislative intent.

    The Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd Vs Addl. CIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28699 (ITAT-DELHI)

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Mar 2022
    There is nothing to question the bonafides of the AO or to elaborate as to what should constitute appropriate evidence.

    Reliance Payment Solutions Limited Vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-8

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28698 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263

  11. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Mar 2022
    The Revenue was justified in disallowing Assessee’s claim of interest on loan for construction.

    Netra Software Technologies P Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28697 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 24

  12. Uttarakhand High Court · 21 May 2021
    Revenue is directed to decide the appeals filed by the assessee which are already uploaded on the Income Tax Portal, would be decided at the earliest, preferably within 1 year.

    Vijay Kumar Gupta Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & others

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28693 (HC-UTTARAKHAND)

  13. ITAT Surat · 21 May 2021
    No addition under section 50C can be made in absence of any evidence.

    Devshibhai Jethabhai Sheta (HUF) Vs ITO Ward -1(3)(6)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28692 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 50C

  14. Madras High Court · 19 May 2021
    HC; The mere fact that no return has been filed setting out a value for the property in question, would not be material.

    T. S. Hajee Moosa & Co. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-8

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28691 (HC-MADRAS)

  15. ITAT Surat · 28 May 2021
    Newly inserted Explanation 2(a) to section 263 does not authorize or give unfettered powers to Commissioner to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made.

    Shantai Exim Limited Vs The DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28690 (ITAT-SURAT) · Section 263

  16. Delhi High Court · 19 May 2021
    The jurisdictional notice in the present case having been issued in the correct name, merely because the assessment order did not mention the subsequently changed name, is not fatal.

    Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-8

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28689 (HC-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Delhi · 25 Mar 2022
    Domestic law cannot be read into treaties, unless treaties are amended bilaterally.

    B.T. Global Communications India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. C.I.T

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28688 (ITAT-DELHI)

  18. ITAT Delhi · 25 Mar 2022
    Simply because the Assessee chose to compute the tax payable on its income under Section 44BBB, on a bonafide belief or misconception that it did not have PE in India, that itself could not entail imposition of penalty.

    Lahmeyer Holding GambH Vs DDIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28687 (ITAT-DELHI)

  19. ITAT Chennai · 25 Mar 2022
    In order to eligible for benefit of investment allowance u/s.32AC(1) of the Act, the assessee must satisfy two conditions as per which new asset should be acquired and installed between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2015. Unless the assessee satisfies two conditions, it cannot claim benefit of additional investment allowance.

    Hyundai Motor India Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28686 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 32AC

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Mar 2022
    The payments are not in the nature of royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA, therefore the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is being deleted.

    Taj TV Limited Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28679 (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.