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 ·Bombay High Court · 05 Oct 2018
    S. 2(22)(e) Deemed Dividend: Law explained on whether only a proportionate addition of deemed dividend can be made taking into consideration the percentage of the shareholding in the borrowing company in cases where (a) there is only one shareholder that has a shareholding in the lending company as well as in the borrowing company & (b) two or more shareholders are shareholders of the same lending company and the same borrowing company

    Sahir Sami Khatib vs. ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15869 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 2(22)(e)

  2. Direct Tax ·Karnataka High Court · 05 Oct 2018
    Court is pained by the manner in which the authority has passed the order just ignoring the applicable Notification and throwing it to winds. The said order is nothing less than suffering from malice-in- facts as well as malice-in-law. The responsible officer deserves to pay the exemplary costs for passing such whimsical order from her personal resources or by deduction from salary

    Kalyani Motors Pvt Ltd vs. Deputy Commissioner

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15868 (HC-KARNATAKA)

  3. Direct Tax ·ITAT Agra · 05 Oct 2018
    S. 271(1)(c) Penalty: Law explained on whether penalty can be imposed where (i) income is added or disallowance is made on estimate basis, (ii) books of account cannot be produced for reasons beyond control, (iii) disallowance is made as per retrospective insertion of s. 37(1) Explanation & (iv) allegation regarding concealment vs. furnishing inaccurate particulars is vague & uncertain

    Farrukhabad Investment (India) Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15867 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 271(1)(c)

  4. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 03 Oct 2018
    HC - Calls for a dedicated legal team in the Department for assisting the Court properly and fully. condemns Revenue officials for the unpleasant state of affairs.

    Radan Multimedia Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax­2

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15853 (HC-BOMBAY)

  5. Direct Tax ·J&K High Court · 03 Oct 2018
    HC - Prosecution proceedings initiation upheld as assessee has the opportunity to prove 'no willful default’ during Trial.

    Arun Arya Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15852 (HC-J&K)

  6. Direct Tax ·Kerala High Court · 02 Oct 2018
    HC - Interim prayer to submit returns within the extended due-date of October 15th without Sec. 234A interest payment rejected. posts the matter for final hearing.

    Hindu Economic Forum Vs Union of India

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15851 (HC-KERALA) · Section 234A

  7. Direct Tax ·ITAT Pune · 01 Oct 2018
    ITAT - Existence of “intention” to continue business assumes significance in matters relating to determination on cessation of business. Claim for expenses allowed.

    M/s. Mula Pravara Electric Co-op. Society Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15850 (ITAT-PUNE)

  8. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 01 Oct 2018
    ITAT - AO chose to adopt pick and choose strategy from assessee’s replies in a manner to ambush assessee despite all the material placed on record before him. Sec 69 addition for partner's profit share deleted.

    Hrishikesh D. Pai Vs DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15849 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69

  9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Pune · 29 Sep 2018
    ITAT - International agreements/conventions/treaties/UN Resolution-986 etc. are not binding on the citizens of India. Failure of the assessee in not complying with the UN Resolution-986 do not constitute an “offence” for the purpose of Explanation 1 to section 37(1). No penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) with respect to Sec. 37(1) disallowance confirmed in quantum appeal.

    Kirloskar Brothers Limited Vs DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15848 (ITAT-PUNE)

  10. Direct Tax ·Gujarat High Court · 29 Sep 2018
    S. 276C/ 279 Compounding of offenses: The expression "amount sought to be evaded" in CBDT's compounding guidelines dated 23.12.2014 means the amount of "tax sought to be evaded" and not the amount of "income sought to be evaded"

    Supernova System Private Limited vs. CCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15842 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 276C, 279

  11. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 29 Sep 2018
    There is no discipline in the manner the Dept conducts matters. The Dept should not take legal matters casually and lightly. There should be a dedicated legal team in the department. Lack of preparation is affecting the performance of the advocates. They do not have full records & do not have the assistance of officials who can give instructions. The CsIT should devote more time to their work rather than attending some administrative meetings and thereafter boasting about revenue collection in Mumbai

    PCIT vs. Radan Multimedia Ltd

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15841 (HC-BOMBAY)

  12. Direct Tax ·Gujarat High Court · 29 Sep 2018
    S. 192/ 205: If the deductor has deducted TDS and issued Form 16A, the deductee has to be given credit even if the deductor has defaulted in his obligation to deposit the TDS with the Government revenue

    Devarsh Pravinbhai Patel vs. ACIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15840 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 192, 205

  13. Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Sep 2018
    S. 2(14)/ 28(va): The "right to sue" which arises on breach of a development agreement is a "personal right" and not a "capital asset" which can be transferred. Consequently, the damages received for relinquishment of the "right to sue" is a non-taxable capital receipt (all judgements considered)

    Bhojison Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15839 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 2(14), 28(va)

  14. Direct Tax ·ITAT Cuttack · 26 Sep 2018
    S. 263 Revision: U/s 114(e) of the Evidence Act, there is a presumption that a s. 143(3) assessment order is regularly passed after application of mind. If the assessee is consistently following the same method of valuation of closing stock, the CIT is not entitled to disturb the consistent method (all judgements referred)

    M/s. Sree Alankar vs. PCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15823 (ITAT-CUTTACK) · Sections 114(e), 263

  15. Direct Tax ·Gujarat High Court · 26 Sep 2018
    S. 147/148: If the AO reopens the assessment on the incorrect premise that the assessee has not filed a return, the reopening is invalid. The fact that the AO may be justified in the view that income has escaped assessment owing to the capital gains not being computed u/s 50C cannot save the reopening is the reasons do not refer to s. 50C

    Mumtaz Haji Mohmad Memon vs. ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15822 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 147, 148

  16. Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 22 Sep 2018
    S. 68 Cash Credits: In order to avail of the theory of "peak credit", the assessee has to make a clean breast of all facts. He has to explain each of the sources of the deposits and the corresponding destination of the payment without squaring them off. The ITAT cannot proceed merely on the basis of accountancy and overlook the settled legal position

    CIT vs. JRD Stock Brokers Pvt Ltd

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15804 (HC-DELHI) · Section 68

  17. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 22 Sep 2018
    S. 260A Low Tax Effect Circular: Very strange request by the Dept is an attempt to get over the binding Circulars. We shall not allow the Revenue to get over them in this manner. The Circulars continue to bind the Revenue and if they contain any conditions, whether such conditions are attracted or not would have to be proved and established by the Revenue

    PCIT vs. Nawany Construction Co. Pvt Ltd

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15803 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 260A

  18. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 19 Sep 2018
    Gain arising to the assessee on account of securitization of lease receivables and credited to the Profit & Loss Account is a taxable receipt in the year of securitisation as per T. V. Sunderam Iyengar 222 ITR 344 (SC). Argument that the entry represents hypothetical income and not real income and that the amount is assessable in subsequent years on receivable basis is not correct. Question of whether income can also be deferred to subsequent years under the "Matching concept" as per Taparia Tools 260 ITR 102 (Bom)/ 372 ITR 605 (SC) left open

    L&T Finance Limited vs. DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15797 (HC-BOMBAY)

  19. Direct Tax ·Calcutta High Court · 19 Sep 2018
    Strictures against CA for certifying bogus accounts with a view to mislead bankers. The matter is typical of how business is conducted in this country and why loans obtained from banks remain unpaid. The ITAT may only be faulted for not reporting the CA to the ICAI for having apparently abetted in the commission of a colossal act of misrepresentation. ICAI directed to look into the matter and take necessary action

    Binod Kumar Agarwala vs. CIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15796 (HC-CALCUTTA)

  20. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 19 Sep 2018
    S. 263(1) obligates the CIT to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard before passing of his order. While the CIT is entitled to consider a point which is not stated in the show-cause notice, he cannot pass the revision order unless the assessee is given the opportunity of being heard. Such an order is untenable in the eyes of law (Amitabh Bachchan 384 ITR 200 (SC) followed)

    Ambuja Cements Limited vs. CIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 15795 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 263(1)

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.