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

15,856 rulings

  1. ITAT Hyderabad · 03 Jul 2020
    ITAT - Sec.50C can not be invoked in case of sale of property engulfed in litigation.

    Vanaja T. Nair Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22797 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 50C

  2. ITAT Delhi · 03 Jul 2020
    It cannot be disputed that the statutory powers vested with one specified authority cannot be exercised by another authority unless and until the statute provides for the same.

    ACIT Vs Soul Space Projects Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22796 (ITAT-DELHI)

  3. ITAT Gauhati · 03 Jul 2020
    The CBDT Circular issued u/s. 119 is binding on the department/AO as held by the various Courts.

    Shri Prabir Das, Karimganj Vs Income-tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22795 (ITAT-GAUHATI) · Section 68

  4. ITAT Delhi · 03 Jul 2020
    The addition in the hands of the assessee is not sustainable when the details furnished by the assessee were not at all controverted by bringing cogent material and investigation made thereon by the ld AO.

    Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22794 (ITAT-DELHI)

  5. ITAT Bangalore · 30 Jun 2020
    As on the date on which the AO referred the question of valuation of the property to the DVO, there was no bar in terms of Sec.50C (2)(b) of the Act.

    Ms. Benedicta Mary Mendonce Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22793 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 50C(2)(b)

  6. ITAT Jaipur · 05 Jun 2020
    Where such person is not deemed to be an assessee in default under the first proviso of sub-section (6A), the interest shall be payable from the date on which such tax was collectible to the date of furnishing of return of income by such buyer.

    M/s Eid Mohammad Nizamuddin Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22792 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 206C(7)

  7. ITAT Delhi · 05 Jun 2020
    Merely because the seller agreed to pay and discharge the outstanding dues and liabilities in respect of the share in the premises, it does not amount that the assessee has not transferred/sold the property during the year.

    Futurz Next Services (Private) Limited Vs Dy. CIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22791 (ITAT-DELHI)

  8. ITAT Delhi · 04 Jun 2020
    The income of the Cyprus resident seller is not chargeable to tax in India, as per the double taxation avoidance agreement prevailing at that time.

    DCIT Vs Narmil Infosolutions Pvt. Ltd

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22790 (ITAT-DELHI)

  9. ITAT Indore · 04 Jun 2020
    On purchase of spare parts by assessee from Swiss Co. through its Indian subsidiary TDS u/s 195 was applicable.

    M/s. Sanghvi Foods Private Limited Vs ITO (IT & TP)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22789 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 195

  10. ITAT Delhi · 08 Jun 2020
    The AO was not justified in changing the nature of the receipt, which continued to remain a dividend irrespective of whatever view was expressed in the assessment.

    Escorts Benefit & Welfare Trust Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22788 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10(34)

  11. ITAT Delhi · 04 Jun 2020
    Before issue of notice, AO has to examine the return filed by the assessee.

    Shri Hemant Mittal Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22787 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 143(2), 148

  12. ITAT Delhi · 04 Jun 2020
    In view of the SC decision in case of Maxopp Investments, the contention of the assessee investment made for acquiring controlling interest in Dabur India Ltd should not be subject to disallowance under section 14A is rejected.

    M/s. Puran Associates Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22786 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 14A

  13. ITAT Delhi · 02 Jun 2020
    No evidences have been put forth by the revenue except merely an allegation of violation of the provisions of section 13 (1) (C) of the Act. Thus, the order of the learned CIT(E) as this issue is involved is not supported by any evidence.

    NIIT Foundation Vs CIT(E)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22785 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 11

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Jun 2020
    The order was passed within the time limit laid down under rule 34(5) of ITAT Rules considering the extraordinary situation of Covid 19 epidemic, the period of lockdown is required to be excluded in computation of the 90 days.

    Newtech (India) Developers Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22784 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  15. ITAT Delhi · 02 Jun 2020
    There is no minimum threshold or gap of time prescribed u/s. 143 (2).

    Surana Enterprises Vs ITO

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22783 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 143(2)

  16. Bombay High Court · 02 Jul 2020
    HC - Revenue having invoked powers u/s.245, cannot withheld the admitted refundable amount.

    Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22782 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 245

  17. ITAT Indore · 02 Jul 2020
    ITAT - Since the rent have been paid to each of the co-owners, tax deductible at source as per the provisions of section 194I of the Act, has been complied by the assessee. No TDS on rent as individual share not exceeding Sec. 194-I threshold.

    M.P. Warehousing & Logistics Corporation Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22781 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 194I

  18. ITAT Jaipur · 02 Jul 2020
    In case, there is a default or delay in submitting the TDS statements, a late fee is levied as contemplated U/s 234E of the Act and the A.O. while processing the statements of TDS shall make the adjustment on this account.

    GOVERNMENT SECONDARY SCHOOL PRINCIPAL OFFICER VERSUS A.C.I.T., CPC-TDS, GAZIABAD.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22780 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83784&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  19. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Jul 2020
    Merit in the case made out by the assessee that various clauses of Section 92BA of the Act were not applicable in the factual matrix.

    ASHISH SUBODHCHANDRA SHAH (HUF) VERSUS PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5 AHMEDABAD

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22779 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83785&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  20. ITAT Bangalore · 02 Jul 2020
    Giving up of a right to claim specific performance by conveyance in respect to an immovable property, amounts to relinquishment of the capital asset. Therefore, there was a transfer of capital asset within the meaning of the Act. The payment of consideration under the agreement of sale, for transfer of a capital asset, is the cost of acquisition of the capital asset. Therefore, in lieu of giving up the said right, any amount received, constitutes capital gain and it is exigible to tax.

    SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR NAGANAGOUDA PATIL VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6 (2) (1) , BANGALORE

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 22778 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=83786&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

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.