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

16,058 rulings

  1. ITAT Mumbai · 14 Nov 2014
    S. 54: Purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner in a new flat constitutes a "purchase" & is eligible for exemption

    ITO. vs. Narinder Kaur Bhatia

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4324 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 54

  2. Allahabad High Court · 14 Nov 2014
    S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Interest expenditure attributable to a taxable business cannot be disallowed. Expenditure on creating assets which do not belong to the assessee is revenue expenditure

    ACIT. vs. Dhampur Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4323 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section. 14A

  3. Madras High Court · 14 Nov 2014
    S. 2(47)(vi): A Power of Attorney which does not enable enjoyment of property does not result in a "transfer". CBDT Circular No.495 dated 22.9.1987 reads more into s. 2(47)(vi) than warranted

    CIT. vs. C. Sugumaran

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4322 (HC-MADRAS) · Sections. 2(47)(vi)

  4. ITAT Hyderabad · 07 Nov 2014
    Sec 292BB would operate prospectively as it curtails the right of the assessee

    M/s. Ghanshyamdas Gems and Jewels v/s DCIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4321 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section. 292BB

  5. ITAT Bangalore · 10 Oct 2014
    Notice u/s 143(2) issued prior to filing of return in response to notice u/s 147 is invalid, even if return is filed late

    Shri G.N.Mohan Raju v/s ITO

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4320 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section. 143(2), 147

  6. Delhi High Court · 12 Nov 2014
    Liability for TDS u/s 194A does not arise if the beneficiary is not ascertainable and the person in whose name the interest is credited is not person liable to pay tax. Circular No. 08/ 2011 dated 14.10.2011 set aside

    UCO Bank vs. UOI

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4319 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 194A

  7. ITAT Lucknow · 11 Nov 2014
    S. 50C vs. s. 11: If a charitable institution invests the entire sale consideration in other capital asset, s. 50C should not be invoked

    ACIT. vs. The Upper India Chamber of Commerce

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4318 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · Sections. 50C, 11

  8. Calcutta High Court · 11 Nov 2014
    Though a firm is not a "person" under UK law, it is so under the Indian law. Consequently, the firm is eligible for exemption under the India-UK DTAA. The department's contention that the firm is not eligible for benefits under the DTAA is not acceptable

    P & O Nedlloyd Ltd. & Ors vs. ADIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4317 (HC-CALCUTTA)

  9. Bombay High Court · 12 Nov 2014
    The person who constructs a road on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis on land owned by the Government is not the "owner" of the road and cannot claim depreciation thereon

    North Karnataka Expressway Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4316 (HC-BOMBAY)

  10. ITAT Hyderabad · 11 Nov 2014
    Law on whether income from rent for lease of space in technology park and income from operation and management of facilities is assessable as "business profits" or "income from house property" explained

    K. Raheja IT Park (Hyderabad) P. Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4315 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)

  11. ITAT Kolkata · 11 Nov 2014
    CIT(A) cannot decline to condone delay in filing appeal and still decide it on merits

    Dr. Murari Mohan Kokey vs. ITO

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4314 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  12. Madras High Court · 12 Nov 2014
    Admission of undisclosed income by assessee constitutes good evidence. Loose sheets found during search can be relied upon

    B. Kishore Kumar vs. DCIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4313 (HC-MADRAS)

  13. ITAT Delhi · 31 Oct 2014
    Rule 10B(1)(b): Resale Price Method applies even where the goods are bought from an AE and sold to another AE

    Yamaha Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4312 (ITAT-DELHI)

  14. ITAT Delhi · 08 Nov 2014
    Though there is a functional difference between a PE Fund and a Merchant Banker, A manager or a sub-advisor to the PE Fund cannot be equated with the PE Fund so as not to be comparable with Merchant Bankers

    Xander Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4311 (ITAT-DELHI)

  15. Bombay High Court · 07 Nov 2014
    S. 145: AO is not entitled to reject books of account in a casual and high-handed manner

    CIT. vs. Teletronics Dealing Systems P. Ltd.

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4310 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 145

  16. ITAT Pune · 03 Nov 2014
    Interest on NPAs is not taxable. As there is a conflict on the point between Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd 330 ITR 440 (Del) and Sakthi Finance Ltd., (2013) 31 taxmann.com 305 (Mad), the view in favour of the assessee has to be followed

    ACIT. vs. Solapur Siddheshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd.

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4309 (ITAT-PUNE)

  17. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Nov 2014
    S. 50C(2): Reference to DVO cannot be made if assessee has challenged the valuation by the stamp authorities and even if the said challenge is dismissed on ground that as purchaser paid the duty, assessee had no locus standi to challenge stamp valuation

    Seksaria Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4308 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 50C(2)

  18. ITAT Delhi · 04 Nov 2014
    S. 37(1): Law on deductibility of expenditure incurred on legal fees to defend criminal proceedings explained

    Praveen Saxena vs. JCIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4307 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 37(1)

  19. ITAT Delhi · 03 Nov 2014
    (i) Method of applying Resale Price Method (RPM) method, (ii) high advertisement expenses has no bearing on the RPM, (iii) comparables with more than 25% of related party transactions (RPTs) have to be excluded, (iv) transactions which do not impact the profitability should be excluded from the formula, (v) potentially comparable companies cannot be expelled only on the ground of high or low turnover

    Nokia India (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4306 (ITAT-DELHI)

  20. ITAT Pune · 04 Nov 2014
    S. 80-IB(10)(c): Area of projected terrace (open to sky) is not liable to be included within the meaning of expression “built-up area”

    Naresh T. Wadhwani vs. DCIT

    (2014) TaxCorp(LJ) 4305 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 80-IB(10)(c)

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.