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

16,049 rulings

  1. ITAT Ahmedabad · 03 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Assessee had capitalised the TSS fee payable over 5 years. Depreciation be re-computed on actual payment of TSS fee and not on the provision created for payment of TSS fee.

    ACIT vs Universal Comfort Products Pvt Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6050 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  2. ITAT Ahmedabad · 03 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Addition based on statements recorded at odd hours pursuant to search is not sustainable.

    ACIT vs. Kunvarji Finance Pvt. Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6049 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  3. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Since AO has merely relied on inquiries conducted by Sales Tax Department, without conducting any other investigation, therefore, no Sec 69C addition can be made for unexplained purchases.

    Deepak Popatlal Gala vs. Income Tax Officer

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6048 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  4. ITAT Ahmedabad · 07 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Loss in currency swap contracts for working capital loans allowable under section 37(1). Loss in currency swap contract cannot be denied to be set off against other heads of income taking it as speculative loss.

    Adani Enterprises Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-1, Ahmedabad

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6026 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40236&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Gujarat High Court · 07 Apr 2015
    HC - When the application for stay is to be considered and decided, it would be required for concerned authority to record reasons and then to reach to the ultimate conclusion as to whether the stay should be granted or not and if yes on what condition. In absence of any reasons, the order cannot be sustained.

    Hitech Outsourcing Services v. Income-tax Officer-Ward 6 (2)

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6025 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=59307&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  6. ITAT Chennai · 07 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Wife of assessee was an independent assessee having separate PAN and had been filing her separate return of income and who owns independent source of income, therefore the income of wife could not be clubbed with income of husband.

    Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle-I, Chennai v. Justice P.D. Dinakaran

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6024 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40235&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Karnataka High Court · 07 Apr 2015
    HC - Since trustees were paid for their services in proportion to growth of trust, therefore payments for such services could not be said in contravention of section 13(1)(c) and benefit under section 11 could not be denied to assessee.

    Commissioner of Income-tax, Exemptions, Bangalore v. CMR Jnanadhara Trust

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6023 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60787&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Madras High Court · 07 Apr 2015
    HC - Based on the conjectures and surmises, AO made comparison of the sale price and reduced the profit while computing deduction under section 10B, however if transaction with AE was not made for shifting profits to assessee, benefit of section 10B can not be denied.

    Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. Cauvery Stone Impex (P.) Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6022 (HC-MADRAS) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=60339&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Madras High Court · 06 Apr 2015
    HC - Assessee had been lackadaisical in its approach and had sought delay (1000+ days condonation request) in a nonchalant manner, thus parameters laid down by the Supreme Court when not to condone delay gets attracted to the facts of the present case.

    P S Rajeswari Vs ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6020 (HC-MADRAS)

  10. ITAT Delhi · 06 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Even if the issue share capital is bogus, no addition can be made in assessee's hands if identity of shareholder is established. Assessee is not required to show source of shareholder's funds. CIT VS. Lovely Export 299 ITR 261 (SC) Followed.

    ITO vs. Neelkanth Finbuild Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6019 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68

  11. ITAT Delhi · 06 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Transfer Pricing - While an adjustment for working capital investment is required, the transaction of sale of goods and receivables arising therefrom can be aggregated. If the differential impact of working capital has been factored in the pricing of the transaction of sale, no further adjustment can be made

    Kusum Healthcare Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6018 (ITAT-DELHI)

  12. Delhi High Court · 06 Apr 2015
    HC - Transfer Pricing - Entire law on determining ALP of transaction of loan of money to AE discussed

    CIT vs. Cotton Naturals (I) Pvt. Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 6017 (HC-DELHI)

  13. ITAT Delhi · 04 Apr 2015
    ITAT - ITDC, a hospitality company, could not be considered as a comparable company for determining ALP of international transaction of assessee which was engaged in research and development activity on behalf of its holding company.

    Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12(1), New Delhi v. Honda R & D (India) (P.) Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5993 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=7993&Category=INTLDecisions&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Gujarat High Court · 04 Apr 2015
    HC - Interest was rightly charged under section 234B(4) despite fact that no interest had been levied under section 234B(1) at time of framing regular assessment.

    AIMS Oxygen Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5992 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=58861&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Pune · 04 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Survey fee paid to non-residence surveyors was not FTS as they didn't make available technical know-how to assessee-insurer, not taxable under section 9(1)(vii).

    Deputy Director of Income-tax, (International Taxation-I), Pune v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5991 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=40209&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Delhi · 02 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Private hospitals have been made in a five star style, DIT(E)’s order cancelling Sec 12A registration is justified. Collecting samples of patients for testing desirability of introducing new drug by commercial companies, not a 'medical research' activity as per assessee’s objects but a commercial activity.

    Devki Devi Foundation vs DIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5989 (ITAT-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Ownership of State cannot be considered or taken into account to determine the character or nature of the activities carried on by the MIDC. Sec 11 charity exemption not available to MIDC as hit by Sec 2(15) proviso.

    Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. DDIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5988 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 2(15)

  18. ITAT Delhi · 01 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Penalty was levied by invoking Explanation 1 to Sec 271(1)(c) which deems ‘concealment' of income, therefore, prosecution u/s.276C, being for 'wilful attempt to evade taxes’, cannot be launched unless the additions and penalty is established. Stay u/S.254(2)(a) proviso against launch of Prosecution is granted.

    Jindal Steel & Power Ltd vs ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5987 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 254(2)(a)

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Apr 2015
    ITAT - Assessee held shares of group companies for strategic purposes and not for selling/buying shares frequently and further no expenditure was actually incurred by the assessee to maintain such investments, no Sec 14A disallowance

    Piem Hotels Limited vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5986 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Apr 2015
    ITAT - AO is not entitled to treat all purchases as bogus merely because sales-tax department has called the seller a "Hawala dealer". The AO ought to have verified the bank details of the assessee and the seller and other evidence before treating the purchases as bogus

    Ramesh Kumar & Co

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5985 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

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.