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. Delhi High Court · 17 Aug 2010
    HC - Opinion of DVO, per se, is not an information and cannot be relied upon in the absence of other corroborative evidence

    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Naveen Gera

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5765 (HC-DELHI)

  2. Delhi High Court · 19 Feb 2015
    HC - An addition cannot be made solely and on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer in absence of any material pointing to under valuation

    CIT. Vs. Nishi Mehra & Others

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5764 (HC-DELHI)

  3. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Aug 2013
    ITAT - TPO is directed to adopt foreign entity as the ‘tested party’ for analyzing the inter-company transactions of the assessee

    General Motors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5763 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  4. Delhi High Court · 16 Mar 2015
    HC - The “bright line test” has no statutory mandate and a broad-brush approach is not mandated or prescribed. Parameters specified in paragraph 17.4 of Special Bench verdict in L. G. Electronics are not binding on the assessed or the Revenue. Matter remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration because the legal standards or ratio accepted and applied by the Tribunal was erroneous

    Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5762 (HC-DELHI)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Stamp valuation u/s 50C is not relevant while computing WDV on sale of asset forming part of the block of assets ‘Building’.

    Bhaidas Cursondas and Company vs ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5761 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 50C

  6. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Mark-to-market loss on interest rate swap contracts is not a notional loss. Benefit against s. 40(a)(ia) disallowance conferred in Kotak Securities 340 ITR 333 (Bom) has to be extended to cases where ROI was filed pre-delivery of the verdict

    IDBI Capital Market Services Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5749 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Though u/s 80-IA(5), the profits of the eligible unit has to be computed on the ‘stand alone’ principle, in a case where the assessee also has non-business income, the brought forward unabsorbed depreciation u/s. 32(2) has to be set off against the eligible profits before computing s. 80-IA deduction

    Deepi Arora vs. ITO

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5748 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 80-IA(5)

  8. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - If assessee's plea about compulsion to pay/ receive loans in cash is not disputed, the violation of s. 269SS/269T is deemed to be bonafide and does not attract penalty

    Chemfert Traders (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5747 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 271D, 271E

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Applying commonsense approach, unclaimed liabilities becoming assessee’s own money are assessable as income even if not credited to P&L A/c

    Genre Exports Private Limited vs. ITO

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5746 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Simply the liabilities being reflected against certain names in the books of account would not establish the genuineness of liabilities. Failure to establish genuineness of old liabilities means that there is a remission/ cessation of such liabilities

    Bharat Dana Bera vs. ITO

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5745 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 41(1), 68

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 16 Mar 2015
    HC - Loss due to fraud & financial irregularities has to be allowed in the year of detection. The loss by embezzlement must be deemed to have occurred when the assessee came to know about the embezzlement and realized that the amount embezzled could not be recovered

    ACIT vs. Boots Piramal Health Care Ltd

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5744 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections 29, 37(1)

  12. Bombay High Court · 14 Mar 2015
    HC - Expenditure allowable u/s 35D cannot be capitalized to asset for claim of depreciation

    International Computers Indian Manufacture vs. CIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5743 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 32, 35D

  13. Bombay High Court · 14 Mar 2015
    HC - Institution consistently generating surplus, utilizing the surplus to buy assets, spending meager amount on treatment of poor patients is not existing “solely for philanthropic purpose” and “not for the purpose of profits”. Fact that exemption has been allowed in the past does not mean exemption has to be continued

    M/s Yash Society vs. CCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5742 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 10(23C)(via)

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 13 Mar 2015
    ITAT - Interest on funds borrowed and extended as interest-free advances to subsidiaries being for commercial expediency is allowable as deduction.

    Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5715 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  15. ITAT Bangalore · 13 Mar 2015
    ITAT - As oral gift satisfied all the requirements of ‘transfer’ under Mohammedan law u/s.129 TOPA, S.54F benefit allowed

    Sajida Begum vs ITO

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5714 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections 129, 54F

  16. Karnataka High Court · 13 Mar 2015
    HC - Assessee (a hospital) incurred expenditure on employee's (MD’s daughter) higher education, allowable as expense had direct nexus with business also daughter of MD/CEO not relevant

    Mallige Medical Centre Pvt. Ltd vs JCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5713 (HC-KARNATAKA)

  17. Madras High Court · 26 Jun 2013
    HC - Service tax on “temporary transfer or permitting the use or enjoyment” of, any copyright as defined in the Copyright Act, 1957 is justified.

    AGS Entertainment Private Ltd. Vs. Union of India

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5712 (HC-MADRAS)

  18. Madras High Court · 26 Feb 2015
    HC - Notification No.25/2012 dated 20.06.2012 is not arbitrary and discriminatory as it extends only to performing artistes in theatre and drama and not artistes in films. No Service Tax exemption to Film Actors.

    Siddharth Suryanarayan Vs. Union of India

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5711 (HC-MADRAS)

  19. ITAT Lucknow · 16 Jan 2015
    ITAT - Order of the Director of Income-tax cannot be challenged or assailed by filing an appeal before an the Commissioner (Appeals) because appellate court or jurisdiction can examine the order of the inferior court and not of the court or authority who is equivalent in rank

    Raibareilly District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. DCIT

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5710 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)

  20. Allahabad High Court · 23 Feb 2015
    HC - Once inquiry was made, a mere non discussion or non mention thereof in assessment order cannot lead to assumption that Assessing Officer did not apply his mind or that he has not made inquiry on the subject and this would not justify interference by Commissioner by issuing notice under Section 263

    CIT. Vs. M/s. Krishna Capbox (P) Ltd.

    (2015) TaxCorp(LJ) 5709 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section. 263

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.