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

16,035 rulings

  1. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Show cause notice u/s 274 is defective if it does not spell out the grounds on which penalty is sought to be imposed.

    Shri B L Dasraj Urs Vs. I.T.O

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8639 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 274

  2. ITAT Kolkata · 09 Jul 2015
    ITAT - Slight difference in the name of the person does not mean that it is not the same person provided the genuineness of the transaction is proved.

    I.T.O Vs. Smt. Mala Gupta

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8638 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  3. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2015
    S. 253/ Rule 27: While the Tribunal can examine all questions which relate to the subject matter of an appeal but, once an issue has attained finality and is not a subject matter of the dispute before the Tribunal, it would not be open for the Tribunal to reopen the issue on the pretext of examining a question of law

    CIT vs. Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8636 (HC-DELHI) · Section 253

  4. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2015
    S. 271(1)(c): Claim that compensation received from foreign party is a capital receipt, though wrong on merits, does not attract penalty if assessee disclosed facts in ROI and was supported by a legal opinion

    Pr. CIT vs. Control And Switchgear Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8635 (HC-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)

  5. ITAT Delhi · 01 Sep 2015
    ITAT- A mere change in the head of income is a case of bona fide mistake which does not attract penalty.

    Simran Singh Gambhir vs. DDIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8634 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 271(1)(c)

  6. Karnataka High Court · 02 Sep 2015
    HC - Sec 10A exemption available to assessee even when it was sub-contracting part of its software development work (‘onsite work’) to AEs abroad.

    CIT. Vs. Mphasis Software & Service India Pvt Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8624 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Section. 10A

  7. ITAT Bangalore · 24 Jul 2015
    ITAT - When short landing of goods is common having regard to the nature of goods and such loss is negligible , then it has to be allowed deduction as business expenditure.

    M/s Sigma Aldrich Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT, Bangalore

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8623 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  8. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2015
    HC - Second proviso inserted vide Finance Act, 2012 which provides that Sec 40(a)(ia) will not be attracted where payee has deposited tax is retrospective in nature

    CIT. vs. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8614 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 40(a)(ia)

  9. Delhi High Court · 01 Sep 2015
    HC - No deemed dividend addition can be made during block assessment u/s 153A since no incriminating material was found during search and assessments for subjects AYs ‘completed’ as on search-date.

    CIT. vs. Kabul Chawla

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8613 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 153A

  10. ITAT Bangalore · 31 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Carry forward of excess expenditure incurred by assessee-trust over its income for setting-off against subsequent years’ income is allowable u/s 11(1)(a).

    Jyothy Charitable Trust vs. DIT(E)

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8612 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  11. Madras High Court · 28 Aug 2015
    HC - Not correct to hold that since the new unit set up could not run on a stand-alone basis without the support from the existing unit, deduction u/s 80IA be denied as assessee did not set-up a “new” unit.

    The Ramco Cements Limited vs. JCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8611 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 80IA

  12. ITAT Delhi · 28 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Instruction No.5/14 dated 10.07.2014 issued by the CBDT are applicable for the pending cases also.

    DCIT. Vs. Garuda Imaging & Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8610 (ITAT-DELHI)

  13. ITAT Lucknow · 28 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Assessment not valid since notice u/s 143(2) were issued on last day of limitation period.

    ITO. Vs. Rajesh Agarwal

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8609 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Section. 143(2)

  14. Supreme Court · 28 Aug 2015
    SC - SLP Dismissed - HC had quashed reassessment notice as satisfaction of Joint Commissioner was recorded mechanically.

    CIT. Vs. Goyanka Lime and Chemicals Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8608 (SC)

  15. Delhi High Court · 28 Aug 2015
    HC - Payment through banking channels insufficient u/s 68. ‘’Source’ creditworthiness is important.

    CIT. vs. Velocient Technologies Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8605 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68

  16. ITAT Delhi · 27 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Transfer Pricing - Transactions of providing support services to “Sogo shosha” entities cannot be characterized as trading transaction for purposes of comparison and determining ALP and the cost of sales cannot be included.

    Mitsui & Co. India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8589 (ITAT-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Delhi · 27 Aug 2015
    ITAT - Transfer Pricing - Circumstances in which the Profit Split Method (PSM) has to be preferred over the TNMM for determining the ALP and method of allocation of profits between the assessee and the AE under the PSM explained.

    Infogain India Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8588 (ITAT-DELHI)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 27 Aug 2015
    ITAT - For the purpose of exemption under section 54, giving advance to builder constitutes "purchase" of new house even if construction is not completed and title to the property has not passed to the assessee within the prescribed period.

    Hasmukh N. Gala vs. ITO

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8587 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54

  19. Delhi High Court · 27 Aug 2015
    HC - A charity is not entitled to exemption if it carries out activities not as per the objects. The fact that such ultra vires objects are also charitable is not relevant. Fact that CIT has granted registration u/s 12A does not preclude AO from examining compliance with s. 11. Incidental objects to attain the main object, even if significant in value, are permissible. Under principles of consistency, AO is not permitted to change view in the absence of a change in facts

    Mool Chand Khairati Ram Trust vs. DIT(E)

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8586 (HC-DELHI) · Section 11

  20. Delhi High Court · 27 Aug 2015
    HC - Customs duty paid in a later year can be capitalized in the year the obligation to pay the duty arose. Question whether it can be capitalized in year of import of the goods left open.

    CIT vs. Noida Medicare Centre Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 8585 (HC-DELHI) · Section 32

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.