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

15,882 rulings

  1. ITAT Delhi · 04 May 2019
    Section 54F is a beneficial provision and should be liberally interpreted. An assessee who has purchased a house property is entitled to exemption u/s 54F despite the fact that construction activities of the new house has started before the date of sale of the original asset (Bharti Mishra 265 CTR 374 (Del) & Kuldeep Singh 270 CTR 561 (Del) followed)

    Kapil Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19199 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54F

  2. ITAT Delhi · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - When both the old as well as new unit were producing independent and distinct product then mere common management does not disentitle new EOU from Sec.10B deduction.

    GE Motors India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19192 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 10B

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - No TDS on subscription charges for the software paid to US company is not taxable under Article 12 of India-USA DTAA DTAA.

    Microfinish Pumps Private Limited Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19191 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  4. ITAT Bangalore · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - Customer Relationship Rights are in the nature of non-compete fee - Depreciation allowable as goodwill.

    Incap Manufacturing Service Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19190 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  5. ITAT Delhi · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - Tax Evasion - Transactions sale of shares of a dubious company, resulting in long term capital gains obtained through brokers are 'sham' and a colourable device - Upholds Sec.69A addition.

    Pooja Ajmani Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19189 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 69A

  6. ITAT Jaipur · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - Sec.56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) not applicable with respect to land purchased by assessee engaged in real estate business, which is part of his stock-in-trade.

    Shri Satendra Koushik Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19188 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 56(2)(vii)(b)

  7. ITAT Delhi · 03 May 2019
    ITAT - Excess remuneration to partners pursuant to 'unregistered' supplementary deed is allowable u/s.40(b).

    Saxon Fluid Sealing Devices Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19187 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40(b)

  8. ITAT Jaipur · 03 May 2019
    The assessee cannot plead that for all its revenue recognition and cost allowability, it is following the prescribed method of accounting and for the purposes of claim of interest expenditure, it will claim allowance under section 36(1)(iii).

    Shri Khatu Shyam Builders Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19186 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 36(1)(iii)

  9. ITAT Amritsar · 02 May 2019
    Distance learning provided by assessee-society to the students in its capacity as an authorized learning centre of Punjab Technical University (PTU) would fall within the realm of rendering 'education' as appearing in the charitable activities definition u/s. 2(15), holds Revenue erred in equating such services with that of a coaching institute.

    Shaheed Udham Singh Educational Society Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemptions)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19185 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 2(15)

  10. Bombay High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Profit Split Method is the Most Appropriate Method to determine the reasonable allocation of deemed taxable profits in India for NR's TV channel distribution revenue.

    Commissioner of IncomeTax (IT)­4 Vs M/s Fox Networks Group Asia Pacific Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19184 (HC-BOMBAY)

  11. Supreme Court · 03 May 2019
    SC - HC failed to frame the substantial question of law as per Sec.260A(3).

    Ryatar Sahakari Sakkarre Karkhane Niyamit Vs Asst. Commissioner of Income TaxC­1 & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19183 (SC)

  12. Madras High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Disallowance u/s 40A(3) - There was no reason for the Assessing Authority for not affording an opportunity to the Assessee to established the exemptions of Rule 6DD - Matter remanded.

    MRS. R. THIRUVENGADAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-I, PONDICHERRY

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19182 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78556&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Calcutta High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Non recording of finding of facts - Order not recording finding of facts is perverse and give rise to a substantial question of law.

    CIT, CENTRAL II VERSUS CHURAMANI HOUSING (P) LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19181 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78557&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Bombay High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Error of TDS mismatch in the computer system - The computer system cannot override the factual aspects. If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence. Department shall take steps to rectify the error of TDS mismatch in the computer system.

    M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) & ORS.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19180 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78558&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  15. Bombay High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Allowability of bad debts - Assessee had entered into a commercial venture by booking commercial space with a developer in the upcoming construction of commercial building, the payment being in the advance booking. The sum was not refunded. This was thus clearly a business loss.

    THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, MUMBAI. VERSUS M/S. KHYATI REALTORS PVT. LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19179 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78560&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Bombay High Court · 03 May 2019
    HC - Addition u/s 40A(2) - Apart from the administrative service expenditure from sister concern as per agreement being motivated by business decision, there is no element of transfer of profit, particularly when it is pointed out that the payee had also paid cash at the tax rate as that of the Assessee. - No addition

    THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE. VERSUS M/S. TATA TOYO RADIATOR PVT. LTD., PUNE.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19178 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78561&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Bombay High Court · 02 May 2019
    The computer system cannot override the factual aspects, If the refund is payable, whether the computer systems accepts or not, is of no consequence.

    Vodafone Idea Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19176 (HC-BOMBAY)

  18. Madras High Court · 02 May 2019
    The said order seems to be a cut and paste order, taking pieces from here and there and as if quoting some of the judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts would be enough for the final fact finding body.

    Sri K.Devakar Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19175 (HC-MADRAS)

  19. Bombay High Court · 30 Apr 2019
    S. 115JB (pre amendment by Finance Act, 2012) is not applicable to a banking company (also insurance & electricity cos) . The mechanism provided for computing book profit in terms of S. 115JB(2) is wholly unworkable for a banking company. When the machinery provision fails, the charging section also fails. The anomaly was removed by the Finance Act, 2012. However, the amendments are neither declaratory nor clarificatory but make substantive and significant legislative changes which are applicable prospectively (Kerala State Electricity Board 329 ITR 91 (Ker) followed)

    CIT vs. Union Bank Of India

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19167 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 115JB

  20. ITAT Ahmedabad · 30 Apr 2019
    S. 50C Capital Gains: Though s. 50C is a deeming provision and the AO is obliged to compute the capital gains by taking the valuation arrived at by the DVO in place of the actual consideration received by the assessee, the assessee is entitled to challenge the correctness of the DVO's valuation before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The DVO has to be given an opportunity of hearing

    Lovy Ranka vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19166 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 50C

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.