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

All landmark rulings

21,598 rulings

  1. Direct Tax ·ITAT Kolkata · 27 May 2019
    ITAT - Since developer-SPV was promoted by Housing Board, notional rentals cannot be charged u/s. 23 as assessee is not 'owner'.

    Bengal DCL Housing Development Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19332 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 23

  2. Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 27 May 2019
    ITAT - Sale deed execution, not POA execution, is relevant for transfer of property and for capital gains purposes.

    Shri Vishnubhai Vithalbhai Patel (HUF) Vs The DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19331 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  3. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 24 May 2019
    HC - Since new unit was not expansion of existing line of the business of the assessee and was new product line altogether, interest u/s 36(1)(iii) disallowed.

    Tube Investments Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19324 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 36(1)(iii)

  4. Direct Tax ·ITAT Cochin · 24 May 2019
    Since the assessee was covered under the expression 'State', therefore payments made by the assessee to its employees towards death cum retirement gratuity, commutation of pension or leave salary would not be liable for TDS to the extent permitted under the provisions of section 10(10)(i), 10(10A) and 10(10AA).

    Mahatma Gandhi University Vs The Income-tax Officer(TDS)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19323 (ITAT-COCHIN)

  5. Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 24 May 2019
    Amount paid u/s. 37(1) to Mauritian company for raising funds for sister-concern is disallowed.

    Sivan Securities (P) Ltd Vs The DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19322 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37(1)

  6. Direct Tax ·ITAT Chandigarh · 24 May 2019
    Merely because the assessee had invested in several small properties, it would not make the transaction a business one.

    Munish Singla Vs Addl. CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19321 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)

  7. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 24 May 2019
    Rental income derived from properties held as stock in trade cannot be assessed as income from house property.

    Kanakia Spaces Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19320 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  8. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 24 May 2019
    Membership fees paid by the assessee for membership of Mumbai Cricket Association for a third person u/s 37(1) as assessee failed to prove that expenses were incurred wholly & exclusively for the purpose of business is disallowed.

    Top Class Capital Markets Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19319 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Chennai · 23 May 2019
    In a case where the assessee participated in the entire proceedings, if such a defect in the notice was not allowed to be cured, the purpose/intent of sec.292B would be defeated.

    Shri. Rajan Kalimuthu Vs The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19312 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  10. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 23 May 2019
    Assessee's claim for Sec. 80IA benefit on interest on loans/advances to employees citing absence of direct nexus with industrial undertaking is rejected.

    The Tata Power Company Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19311 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  11. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 22 May 2019
    Rule 4A of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1963 empowers the Selection Board to evolve its own procedure.

    Puneet Sharma Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19310 (HC-DELHI)

  12. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 21 May 2019
    Since the builder would fall in the category of other institution and therefore booking of the flat with the builder has to be treated as construction of flat by the assessee. Therefore, Applies 3 years timeline for Sec. 54 benefit

    Seema Sobti Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19304 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 54

  13. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 21 May 2019
    If the Revenue is objecting to the appointment of the assessee as Debt Recovery Agent, then, principally the revenue has accepted that the transfer of loan has taken place. Further, when the Revenue is objecting to indemnity of 20%, then also the revenue is accepting that actual transfer has taken place.

    GE Capital Services India Vs The Dy. C.I.T

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19303 (ITAT-DELHI)

  14. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 20 May 2019
    In view of the above judicial precedents, respectfully following them, we hold that assessee is entitled for tax credit of federal as well as state taxes paid by him u/s 91 of the Act.

    Aditya Khanna Vs ITO (International Taxation)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19297 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 91

  15. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 20 May 2019
    If a normal donation is doubted by the AO about its genuineness, and identity of the donors, the addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the income tax act in the case of the trust as it has already been offered as an income.

    Shree Shiv Vankeshawar Educational & Social Welfare Trust Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19296 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section115BBC

  16. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 20 May 2019
    When faced with the situation of a software glitch that prevents an Assessee from either filing a return or claiming a benefit, the Courts have repeatedly had to permit the manual filing of return/claims and and have directed the Respondents to act on such manual filing of returns.

    Cosmo Films Limited Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19295 (HC-DELHI)

  17. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 18 May 2019
    ITAT Members' Appointment: The action of the Selection Committee of short-listing only 24 candidates for interview out of 649 applications is not violative of Article 14. The criteria of short-listing Advocates in practice for at least 20 years and with income of not less than Rs. 1.40 lakh for post of Judicial Member is rational and reasonable and not arbitrary

    Puneet Sharma vs. UOI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19289 (HC-DELHI)

  18. Direct Tax ·Supreme Court · 18 May 2019
    Benami Transactions: While considering whether a particular transaction is benami, the intention of the person who contributed the purchase money is determinative. The intention has to be decided on the basis of surrounding circumstances; relationship of parties; motives governing their action in bringing about the transaction and subsequent conduct. The payment of part sale consideration & stamp duty cannot be the sole criteria to hold the sale/transaction as benami

    Mangathai Ammal vs. Rajeswari

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19288 (SC)

  19. Direct Tax ·ITAT Jaipur · 17 May 2019
    The delay in getting the accounts audited as per the provisions of Sec. 44AB was due to the reasons as explained by the assessee which were beyond the control of the assessee being a State Government Undertaking.

    Rajasthan State Mines & Minerals Limited Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19282 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 44AB

  20. Direct Tax ·ITAT Pune · 17 May 2019
    There is no provision in the Act to allow filing of miscellaneous Application (MA) against an order passed by the ITAT in miscellaneous Application filed by assesse.

    Mercedes Benz Education Academy Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19281 (ITAT-PUNE)

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.