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. ITAT Chennai · 18 May 2017
    ITAT - Where assessee engaged a third party for coding or writing program, software was developed under the instruction, control and supervision of assessee. Sec. 10A exemption available with respect to software exported by assessee.

    DCIT. Vs. Mahati Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12846 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section. 10A

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 17 May 2017
    ITAT - No sec. 80IB(10) deduction to assessee-builder on account of violation of condition under clause (f) i.e. allotment of more than one residential unit to same individuals/family members.

    Shri Syed Aleemullah Vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12843 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 80-IB(10)

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 17 May 2017
    ITAT - Liability to pay compensation was crystallized when assessee accepted its failure to perform its part under the JDA agreement and thus determination of compensation after the balance sheet date has to be taken into account in view of the principle of prudence and conservatism accounting as per AS-4.

    Canara Housing Development Company vs. JCIT (OSD

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12842 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  4. Allahabad High Court · 13 May 2017
    S. 145: If the AO has not rejected the books of account, it means that the assessee has maintained the books of accounts in accordance with the prescribed standards as per s. 145 of the Act. If so, the AO is not entitled to make any addition on account of sale of goods out of books or for investment in stock out of undisclosed sources

    CIT vs. Pashupati Nath Agro Food Products Pvt. Ltd

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12833 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 145

  5. Supreme Court · 15 May 2017
    SC - Rental income from sub-licensing of shopping centre is taxable as ‘house property’ income and not business income.

    Raj Dadarkar & Associates vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12832 (SC)

  6. ITAT Chennai · 15 May 2017
    ITAT - Classification of land as agricultural in revenue records does not conclusively prove the nature of land sold by assessee. Absent agricultural operations, gains arising on sale of land shall be exigible to capital gains tax and spontaneous vegetation and land location would not be relevant.

    ITO vs. Shri Vijay Shah

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12831 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  7. ITAT Chandigarh · 16 May 2017
    ITAT - No work was done by the agents for the assessee warranting payment of commission, therefore disallowance of commission expenses justified.

    Milap Industrial Corporation Versus Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12830 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55544&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Lucknow · 16 May 2017
    ITAT - Provisions of section 271AAB are not mandatory. "May" cannot be equated with "shall" especially in penalty proceedings. Using the word "may", gives a discretion to the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty or not to levy, even if the assessee has made the default under the said provision.

    Sandeep Chandak, Shakuntala Devi Chandak, Kamal Kishore Chandak Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12829 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55545&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  9. ITAT Lucknow · 16 May 2017
    ITAT - Wife of son of the partner does not fall within the definition of the relative as defined under sub-section (2) of section 41 of the Act. Therefore, provisions of section 40A(2)(b) are not applicable.

    Shree Tirupati Motors Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12828 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55543&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 16 May 2017
    ITAT - When the name of the assessee does not appear in the panchanama and no material is seized with respect to the assessee, it is conclusive proof that no search was at all conducted. Proceedings under section 153A is without any valid jurisdiction.

    M/s Unique Star Developers Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-7, Mumbai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12827 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55981&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  11. ITAT Chennai · 16 May 2017
    ITAT - It was proved that the persons who paid rent of community hall and who paid the corpus donation were same. This is an act of quid pro for hiring the hall and no question of voluntary contribution in this payment. Exemption u/s 11 denied.

    The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemptions) -II, Chennai Versus M/s. Chennai Kammavar Trust

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12826 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55983&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Orissa High Court · 16 May 2017
    HC - It is the right of every assessee to seek for the certified copy of entire order sheet of any assessment proceeding. Revenue directed to supply the copy of entire order sheet on deposit of applicable fee as computed and intimated to the assessee.

    Shankarlal Khaitan Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12825 (HC-ORISSA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=69094&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Chennai · 15 May 2017
    ITAT - CIT (A) rightly held the asset as short term capital asset and the gains should be taxed as short term capital gains since the holding period was less than 36 months from the date of conversion of stock in trade in to the capital asset.

    Deensons Trading Co. (P.) Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer, Co. Circle - I (4), Chennai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12824 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55971&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Kolkata · 15 May 2017
    ITAT - Assessee is always obliged to prove the receipt of share capital with premium etc. to the satisfaction of the AO, failure of which calls for addition u/s 68.

    M/s. Classic Flour & Food Processing Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.I.T., Kol-IV, Kolkata

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12823 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55972&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Jaipur · 15 May 2017
    ITAT - Assessee has not obtained the approval under section 11(1)(c) of the Act and in absence of the same, the application under section 80G(5)(vi) has rightly been rejected.

    Barefoot College International Versus The Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption), Jaipur

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12822 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55974&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Supreme Court · 15 May 2017
    SC - Addition based on seized documents - It is but natural that if any concealed income has been found at the time of search and survey, it has to be distributed among all the family members who were carrying on business.

    Commissioner of Income-Tax Versus Rekha Bai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12821 (SC) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68853&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Bombay High Court · 12 May 2017
    Valid service of notice: Law explained on whether sending a notice by RPAD and its return by the postal authorities with the remark "addressee refused to accept" amounts to a valid service or not

    CST vs. Sunil Haribhau Pote

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12820 (HC-BOMBAY)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 12 May 2017
    ITAT - Agreement for acquiring media rights was pursuant to assessee’s normal business activity, therefore forfeited media rights advance is a revenue loss. Despite arbitration proceedings, as assessee did not visualize any sign of recovery, it wrote-off the forfeited amount, which is valid.

    Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. vs. Additional ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12819 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  19. Delhi High Court · 11 May 2017
    HC - No TDS u/s 195 on payment of export commission for using technology licensed by by a foreign company as the same is neither royalty nor FTS,

    CIT vs. Hero Motocorp Limited

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12818 (HC-DELHI)

  20. ITAT Delhi · 13 May 2017
    ITAT - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) valid for addition u/s 68 since opportunities were provided by the AO to the assessee to substantiate its claim and to disprove the contention of the non-confirming party but the assessee failed to show any initiative for cross verification and cross-examination of the said party.

    Akik Tiles Pvt. Ltd Versus The ACIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12817 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=55964&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.