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

15,912 rulings

  1. Calcutta High Court · 20 Sep 2017
    HC - The Settlement Commission not having disclosed the reasons for arriving at the figures which to its best judgment are the figures to be added to the income of the private respondent, the impugned order is set aside.

    Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3 (1), Kolkata & Others Versus Emta Coal Limited

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13587 (HC-CALCUTTA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69950&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. ITAT Chandigarh · 20 Sep 2017
    ITAT - Second limb or requirement of section 2(22)(e) of the assessee having substantial interest in the concern to which loan or advance has been given has not been established and, therefore, the said advance cannot be treated as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee.

    Sh. Roshan Lal Jindal Versus The D.C.I.T., Central Circle-1, Chandigarh And Vice-Versa

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13586 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=57848&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Delhi · 20 Sep 2017
    ITAT - Where electrical installations are treated as plant and machinery, depreciation allowable @ 25%.

    HCL Technologies BPO Services Ltd. (now stands amalgamated with HCL Technologies Limited) Versus ACIT, CC 2, New Delhi

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13585 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=57845&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  4. Gujarat High Court · 19 Sep 2017
    HC - Reassessment valid based on fresh material unearthed by the IT Department through the investigation wing in respect of 'bogus purchases'.

    Gujarat Ambuja Exports vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13584 (HC-GUJARAT)

  5. J&K High Court · 19 Sep 2017
    HC - No income accrued to JV-company as there was diversion of income by overriding title in respect of contracts receipts.

    Soma TRG Joint Venture vs. CIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13583 (HC-J&K)

  6. Gujarat High Court · 18 Sep 2017
    HC - Allotment of PAN u/s 139A to open a new bank account will not make allottee a separate taxable entity for the purpose of assessment of tax.

    Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Education Society Vs. ITO

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13576 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section. 139A

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 18 Sep 2017
    ITAT - Since assessee’s tenancy right was extinguished upon purchase of property vide sale agreement, gains arising on sale of shop to be treated as short term capital gains not eligible for Sec. 54 exemption.

    Jayantilal K. Jain vs. ITO

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13575 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  8. ITAT Delhi · 18 Sep 2017
    ITAT - CIT(A)’s rationale for deleting addition that assessee offered capital gains on transactions with accommodation entry provider, was not proper.

    Esha Securities Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13574 (ITAT-DELHI)

  9. Gujarat High Court · 16 Sep 2017
    HC - Sections 245D(2A), 245D(2D) and 245HA inserted by the Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. June 1, 2007, constitutionally valid.

    Ashish Prafulbhai Patel vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13568 (HC-GUJARAT)

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Sep 2017
    ITAT - Only net interest income to be excluded while determining deduction u/s. 10A in respect of profit derived from exports.

    Balaji Export Co. vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13567 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 10

  11. ITAT Hyderabad · 12 Sep 2017
    ITAT - Compounding fine paid to Municipal Corporation for regularising the building plan is not for offence nor prohibition of any law hence allowable u/s 37(1).

    Keerthi Estates (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13560 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 37

  12. Bombay High Court · 15 Sep 2017
    S. 153A: Argument of the Dept that the law laid down in Continental Warehousing/ All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) that assessment u/s 153A can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the search and no other issue can be taken is per incuriam in view of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers 291 ITR 500 (SC) is not correct. Bhola Shankar Cold Storage 270 ITR 487 (Cal) distinguished

    CIT. vs. Deepak Kumar Agarwal

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13542 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 153A

  13. Delhi High Court · 15 Sep 2017
    S. 263 Revision: For the purposes of exercising jurisdiction u/s 263, the conclusion of the CIT that the order of the AO is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue has to be preceded by some minimal inquiry. If the PCIT is of the view that the AO did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the PCIT to conduct such inquiry. The second option available u/s 263 (1) of sending the entire matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment can be exercised by the PCIT only after he undertakes an inquiry himself and not otherwise

    PCIT. vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13541 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 263

  14. Allahabad High Court · 15 Sep 2017
    S. 12AA: At the time of registration of a charitable institution u/s 12AA, the CIT is not required to look into the activities, where such activities have not or are in the process of its initiation. The registration cannot be refused on the ground that the trust has not yet commenced the charitable or religious activity. At this stage, only the genuineness of the objects has to be tested and not the activities, unless such activities have commenced

    CIT. vs. Shreedhar Sewa Trust

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13540 (HC-ALLAHABAD)

  15. Bombay High Court · 12 Sep 2017
    Severe strictures passed against the department for filing a 'patently false' affidavit with regard to the failure to remove office objections. The cause shown is not sufficient and lacks in bona fides. It is a case of gross negligence and utter callousness on the part of the Revenue/Department. Tendency of the Revenue to either blame its' Advocate or the procedural rules for the dismissal of their Appeals deprecated

    CIT vs. Parle Bisleri Ltd

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13522 (HC-BOMBAY)

  16. ITAT Pune · 12 Sep 2017
    Transfer Pricing: In the case of an assessee engaged in distribution activity there is no value addition to the product in question even if the selling and marketing expenses are borne by the assessee. Accordingly, the Resale Price Method is the most appropriate method for bench marking the transaction and determining whether it is at arms' length. The TPO is not entitled to thrust TNMM to evaluate the transaction

    Fresenius Kabi India Private Limited vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13521 (ITAT-PUNE)

  17. ITAT Kolkata · 12 Sep 2017
    CBDT guidelines for scrutiny of cases: Law explained as to how the CBDT Guidelines for manual selection of cases for scrutiny have to be interpreted and whether CIT in granting approval is required to show application of mind and give reasons for his decision

    M/s Brothers & Sisters Enterprise vs. JCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13520 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  18. Supreme Court · 09 Sep 2017
    S. 37(1): in order to decide whether disputed lease rent is deductible in the year of fixation or in the year the dispute attains finality, the nature of fixation of rent, its payment, recovery etc. and whether it is statutory or contractual, have bearing. The Tribunal is required to bring the facts on record

    CIT vs. Travancore Cochin Udyoga Mandal

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13513 (SC) · Section 37(1)

  19. Supreme Court · 09 Sep 2017
    S. 260A/27A: Meaning of "substantial question of law" explained. The High Court cannot proceed to hear a second appeal without formulating the substantial question of law involved in the appeal and if it does so it acts illegally and in abnegation or abdication of the duty case on Court

    Maharaja Amrinder Singh vs. CWT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13512 (SC) · Sections 260A, 27A

  20. Supreme Court · 09 Sep 2017
    HUF Law: It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property

    Adiveppa vs. Bhimappa

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 13511 (SC)

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.