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

15,843 rulings

  1. ITAT Chennai · 04 Mar 2021
    Service tax paid out of pocket is an item of expenses deductible u/s 37(1).

    FIH India Private Limited Vs The DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26290 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 37

  2. ITAT Chennai · 04 Mar 2021
    Expenses towards gifts given to the doctors by the assessee are nothing but sales promotion, which, are allowable under section 37(1).

    ICARUS Health Care P Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26289 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 37

  3. Aar High Court · 03 Mar 2021
    There was no requirement to ascertain that the amount paid under section 115BBA was chargeable to tax or not. Even if it was not chargeable it did not absolve the Applicant from the liability to deduct TDS under section 194E.

    LG Electronics India Private Ltd Vs Pr. CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26282 (HC-AAR)

  4. Supreme Court · 02 Mar 2021
    What is of importance is that once a DTAA applies, the provisions of the Income Tax Act can only apply to the extent that they are more beneficial to the assessee and not otherwise.

    Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26281 (SC)

  5. Delhi High Court · 02 Mar 2021
    The existence of incriminating material found during the course of the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation.

    Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) Vs PCIT (CENTRAL) – 3

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26280 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153A

  6. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Mar 2021
    Application under Rule 24 of ITAT Rules is not guided by any time limit and sufficient cause for non-appearance is the only requirement.

    Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs The DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  7. ITAT Bangalore · 01 Mar 2021
    The parties should have performed or should have shown willingness to perform obligations mentioned in the contract to attract provisions of Sec. 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to fall under the scope of deemed transfer u/s 2(47)(v).

    N. A. Haris Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26278 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 2(47)

  8. Aar High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Statutory expenses should not be considered as operational expenditure.

    BG Asia Pacific Holding Pte. Limited Vs CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26265 (HC-AAR)

  9. ITAT Delhi · 26 Feb 2021
    Income attributable to PE in India being less than the remuneration paid to the dependent agent, it extinguishes the assessment and requires no further exercise for computation of income.

    Ricardo UK Limited Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26264 (ITAT-DELHI)

  10. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Feb 2021
    Non-disposal of appeal could not be attributed to assessee.

    Indianoil Skytanking Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26263 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  11. Delhi High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Application filed by the petitioner in March, 2017 invoking, Rule 24 was within time and could not have been dismissed applying the provisions of limitation applicable to Section 254(2).

    Pradeep Kumar Jindal Vs PCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26262 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254(2)

  12. Supreme Court · 25 Feb 2021
    Although in Vijaya Bank, provisions of Sec. 18 applied, the ratio propounded therein continues to hold good.

    The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26256 (SC)

  13. Supreme Court · 25 Feb 2021
    In view of the second proviso to Section 153A of the said Act, once assessment got abated the assessee as well as revenue to make claims for allowance or to make disallowance.

    Jsw Steel Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26255 (SC) · Sections 153A, 139

  14. ITAT Kolkata · 25 Feb 2021
    CIT(A) has not enquired properly which fact is discernible from the show cause notice. According to us, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad for not conducting proper enquiry and for non-application of mind.

    United Teleservices Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incometax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26254 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  15. ITAT Delhi · 24 Feb 2021
    It was not a case where the assessee was acquiring for the first time something which it did not otherwise own or possess. It was, thus, a change in the method of earning profits from the hotel and not a transfer of any asset. We find merit in the argument of the ld. Counsel that the agreement was terminated on business considerations and as a matter of commercial expediency.

    ELEL Hotels & Investment Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26247 (ITAT-DELHI)

  16. ITAT Bangalore · 24 Feb 2021
    Word assessee must be given a wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also.

    Krishnappa Jayaramaiah Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26246 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 54

  17. Gujarat High Court · 24 Feb 2021
    It is clear that after making a declaration under the IDS, the petitioner is duty bound to effect timely payment of liability under IDS and therefore, the impugned order is legal and valid.

    Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TEXES

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26245 (HC-GUJARAT)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 23 Feb 2021
    For appeal filed in accordance with the form, not signed by persons under Rule 45, an opportunity should be provided correct the error, rather than dismissing the appeal.

    Businessmatch Services (India) Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26238 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  19. Delhi High Court · 23 Feb 2021
    Normally unless contrary is established, title always follows possession and the onus of proving that the assessee is not owner is on the assessee.

    Jatinder Pal Singh Vs DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 9 NEW DELHI

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26237 (HC-DELHI) · Section 69A

  20. Delhi High Court · 23 Feb 2021
    Once the matter concerns territoriality, the place of residence cannot be said to be not relevant. The petitioner, to that extent has indulged in suppression of material facts and for this reason alone is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court.

    Dev Wines Sales Corporation Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-10

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26236 (HC-DELHI) · Section 127

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.