Direct Tax landmark rulings

1. Delhi High Court · 16 Feb 2016
   Pursuant to the amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 all rights which were available to a Hindu male are now also available to a Hindu female. A daughter is now recognised as a co-parcener by birth in her own right and has the same rights in the co-parcenary property that are given to a son. Consequently, the eldest daughter is entitled to be the Karta of the HUF

   Sujata Sharma vs. Manu Gupta

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9934 (HC-DELHI)

2. Supreme Court · 16 Feb 2016
   Law on prospective vs. retrospective operation of legislation explained. The Hindu Succession (Amendment Act), 2005 which came into effect on 09.09.2015 and by which daughters in a joint Hindu family, governed by Mitakshara law, were granted statutory right in the coparcenary property (being property not partitioned or alienated) of their fathers applies only if both the father and the daughter are alive on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act

   Prakash vs. Phulvati

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9933 (SC)

3. ITAT Delhi · 17 Feb 2016
   A Power of Attorney executed by the Head Office in favour of the Liaison Office in India does not create a Permanent Establishment if the powers are specific to the liaison office and are not unfettered powers to enable to Liaison Office to act on behalf of the enterprise

   Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd vs. ACIT

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9932 (ITAT-DELHI)

4. ITAT Chandigarh · 23 Jul 2015
   Interest from surplus fund taxable as income from other sources

   M/s Himlayan Expressway Limited vs. ITO

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9911 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)

5. Bombay High Court · 05 Feb 2016
   Sec. 172 No TDS on payment to non–resident shipping companies

   CIT. vs. V.S. Dempo & Co. Pvt. Ltd.

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9910 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 172

6. ITAT Mumbai · 29 Jul 2015
   AO duty bound to follow direction of appellate authorities

   DCIT. vs. M/s. ACC Ltd.

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9909 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

7. ITAT Mumbai · 21 Oct 2015
   New appeal filing monetary limit applies to pending appeals also

   ITO. vs. Smt. Sudha Brijratan Damani

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9908 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

8. ITAT Pune · 31 Jul 2015
   WIP Valuation on receipt basis forbidden in mercantile accounting

   The ACIT. vs. M/s. Ambarwadikar & Co., Engineers & Contractors

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9907 (ITAT-PUNE)

9. ITAT Mumbai · 17 Feb 2016
   ITAT - Special provisions u/s 50 override Sec 55(2)(ab). WDV of BSE membership card would be regarded as COA.

   Twin Earth Securities Private Limited vs. ACIT

   (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9906 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 55(2)(ab)

10. ITAT Chennai · 17 Feb 2016
    ITAT - Assessee’s false claim supported by CA's opinion cannot absolve assessee from Sec 271(1)(c) penalty.

    DCIT. Vs. Madura Micro Finance Limited

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9905 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 271(1)(c)

11. ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Jul 2015
    S. 80IB(10) Deduction allowed on additional business income declared post search

    Madhav Corporation vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9904 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section. 80IB(10)

12. ITAT Ahmedabad · 21 Oct 2015
    Non TDS deduction disallowance not sustainable if payee discharges his tax liability

    Kurian Ulahannan Moothukuzhiyil vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

13. ITAT Delhi · 10 Feb 2016
    S. 80IC: 100% deduction allowed on every substantial expansion

    M/s Tirupati LPG Industries Ltd. vs. JCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9902 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 80IC

14. ITAT Delhi · 05 Feb 2016
    Penalty u/s 271AAA not tenable where no search conducted

    DCIT. vs. M/s. Sam India Abhimanyu Housing

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9901 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 271AAA

15. ITAT Cochin · 16 Feb 2016
    ITAT - No TDS u/s 195 on commission payments made to UK/UAE companies under ‘Exclusive procurement agreement’.

    Cochin International Airport Ltd. vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9900 (ITAT-COCHIN)

16. Bombay High Court · 13 Feb 2016
    Transfer Pricing: Companies with large turnover like Infosys & Wipro are not comparable to companies with smaller turnover and should be excluded from the list of comparables

    CIT vs. Pentair Water India Pvt. Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9899 (HC-BOMBAY)

17. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Feb 2016
    S. 54EC: The period of "6 months" available for making investment means 6 calendar months & not 180 days. Payment by cheque dates back to date of presentation & not date of encashment

    Neela S. Karyakarte vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9898 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54EC

18. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Feb 2016
    There is a distinction betwen "setting up" and "commencement" of a business. A business is "set up" and expenditure is deductible even if assessee has no customers and no income

    Multi Act Realty Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

19. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Feb 2016
    Expl to s. 37(1): Penalties & fines paid to SEBI, BSE etc for breach of regulatory/ procedural requirements are "compensatory" in nature and not for any purpose which is an ‘offense’ prohibited by the law

    Mangal Keshav Securities Limited vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9896 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 37(1)

20. ITAT Delhi · 15 Feb 2016
    Argument that transfer pricing adjustment cannot be made if the assessee's income is deductible u/s 10A/ 10B is not acceptable. Contrary view in TCS cannot be followed as it is obiter dicta & contrary to law laid down in Aztech Software 107 ITD 141 (SB)

    Headstrong Services India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 9895 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 10A, 10B

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.