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

15,928 rulings

  1. ITAT Chandigarh · 13 Dec 2016
    ITAT - Any material collected at the back of the assessee and not confronted to the assessee ad without calling for comments of the assessee would not be admissible in evidence against the assessee.

    M/s Premier Electrical Industries Versus The JCIT, Range-II, Chandigarh

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11631 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52491&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 13 Dec 2016
    ITAT - There is an implied contract between the assessee and such persons who have been paid the gold making charges. The provisions of sec 194C are clearly attracted.

    M/s. Srinidhi Gold Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Mandya

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11630 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=52498&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Mumbai · 12 Dec 2016
    S. 147 reopening opens a "Pandora's box" and cannot be done in a casual manner. The reasons cannot be based on mere doubts or with a view to verify basic facts. If the AO takes the view that the income referred to in the reasons has not escaped assessment, he loses jurisdiction to assess other escaped income that comes to his notice during reassessment

    Torm Shipping India Pvt Ltd vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11629 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 147

  4. Supreme Court · 12 Dec 2016
    S. 4: Law laid down in Sahney Steel 228 ITR 253 (SC) and Ponni Sugars 306 ITR 392 (SC) regarding the taxability of subsidies as a revenue receipt does not apply to voluntary subsidies (subvention) paid by a holding company to its loss making subsidiary. The said subsidy is to protect the capital investment of the holding company and is a capital receipt in the hands of the recipient

    Siemens Public Communications Network Ltd vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11628 (SC) · Section 4

  5. P&H High Court · 12 Dec 2016
    S. 271(1)(c) penalty cannot be levied in a case where the assessee has relied on legal opinion of a professional and there is no tax impact i.e. the loss disallowed in year one is allowed set-off in a later year

    Pr. CIT vs. Atotech India Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11627 (HC-P&H) · Section 271(1)(c)

  6. ITAT Delhi · 12 Dec 2016
    ITAT - A company providing KPO services is not comparable while determining ALP for ITES company.

    Actis Global Services (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 1(3), New Delhi

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11626 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=11062&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 12 Dec 2016
    ITAT - Payment of open access charges for use of transmission lines does not constitute royalty u/s 9(1)(vi), hence no TDS u/s 194J.

    Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-3(1)(TDS), Vijayawada v. Nava Bharat Ventures Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11625 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51144&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Mumbai · 12 Dec 2016
    ITAT - There was no provision in AY 2009-10 requiring TDS from payment made for use of computer software as royalty, no addition can be made u/s 40(a)(i).

    Shinhan Bank v. Deputy Director of Income-tax (International Taxation)-2 (1), Mumbai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11624 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=11063&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip

  9. ITAT Kolkata · 12 Dec 2016
    ITAT - Use of multiple year data and adopting weighted average data of comparables is permissible only in respect of international transactions entered into on or after 1-4-2014 as per amendment to rule 10B and rule 10CA of 1962 Rules.

    Lee Hours Pomeroy Architects v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (IT), Cir-1 (2), Kolkata

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11623 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10699&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 12 Dec 2016
    ITAT -it is mandatory that the assessee has to independently benchmark its international transaction with independent comparables so as to arrive at arm's length price.

    Sara Lee TTK Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-10(2), Mumbai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11622 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51397&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  11. Allahabad High Court · 12 Dec 2016
    HC - Income received from the cancellation of the contract and the interest thereon received are revenue receipt.

    M/s C.K. Ahuja, M/s L.K. Ahuja Versus The Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11621 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66935&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Delhi High Court · 08 Dec 2016
    S. 2(42C)/ 50B: The fact that certain assets of the "undertaking" are left out of the sale transaction because it would cause inconvenience for the purchaser does not mean that the transaction is not a "slump sale". To expect a purchaser to buy and pay value for defunct or superfluous assets flies in the face of commercial sense

    Triune Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11620 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 2(42C), 50B

  13. Gujarat High Court · 08 Dec 2016
    S. 147: If the AO reopens the assessment on information supplied by the audit party without application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Likewise, if the AO disputes the findings of the audit party, he is not entitled to reopen the assessment. The reasons must show independent application of mind of the AO

    Elecon Engineering Co Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11619 (HC-GUJARAT) · Section 147

  14. Gujarat High Court · 08 Dec 2016
    Transfer Pricing: As per CBDT's Instruction No.3/2016 dated 10.03.2016, the AO is required to give an opportunity to the assessee to show cause why the reference should not be made to the TPO and thereafter pass a speaking order while making a reference to the TPO. The failure to do so renders the reference void

    Alpha Nipon Innovatives Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11618 (HC-GUJARAT)

  15. Bombay High Court · 09 Dec 2016
    HC - No penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of‘ bonafide’ claim of deferred revenue expenditure made by assessee but disallowed by AO.

    Taparia Tools Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11617 (HC-BOMBAY)

  16. Calcutta High Court · 09 Dec 2016
    HC- An amount held on revenue account may lose its character if the same is sterilized or blocked and any return arising out of sterilized/blocked fund would be a capital receipt. Excess sum received owing to exchange rate fluctuation will also be on capital account.

    CIT. Vs. SDB Infrastructure Pvt. ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11616 (HC-CALCUTTA)

  17. Delhi High Court · 09 Dec 2016
    HC - A sick company liability to pay capital gains tax on subsequent positive net-worth.

    Laxmi Automatic Loom Works Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Recovery) And Anr.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11615 (HC-DELHI)

  18. Bombay High Court · 09 Dec 2016
    HC - Writ Allowed - Income may have accrued during another year was not a finding required for disposal of the appeal therefore, it falls beyond the scope of Section 150 read with the Explanation (2) to Section 153 (3). Reassessment invalid.

    Kala Niketan & Anr. vs. UOI

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11614 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 153

  19. Bombay High Court · 09 Dec 2016
    HC - Once the petitioner gives up the constitutional and the larger challenge and are agreeable that their refund application if processed in accordance with law and expeditiously they would be satisfied and would not press the petition thereafter, refund processing pending scrutiny notice allowed.

    Aegis Ltd. Vs. The Union of India

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11613 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 143(1D)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 09 Dec 2016
    ITAT - An abject lack of application of mind, non consideration of the assessee’s submissions, factually incorrect assumptions, non rendering of any cogent reasons for action and abject failure on the part of the AO to follow the procedure mandated by the provisions of section 14A. Sec.14A disallowance set aside.

    Ms. Fereshte Sethna Vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11612 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section.14A

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.