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

21,653 rulings

  1. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 22 Apr 2016
    ITAT - Revision of order u/s 263 cannot be done if two views are possible on the issue. There is no money borrowed or debt incurred as such provisions of sec. 2(28A) and sec. 194A do not apply.

    Neo Sports Broadcast Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT (TDS)

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10137 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 194A

  2. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 22 Apr 2016
    ITAT - TDS u/s 194C and not u/s 194J is applicable to subscription payments made to TV channels for redistribution of TV Channels through cable operators.

    ITO. vs. Wire & Wireless (India) Limited

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10136 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Sections. 194C, 194J

  3. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 22 Apr 2016
    ITAT - Explanation given by assessee that it was under a genuine belief that it was entitled for relief u/s 80 IA (supported by CA-certificate) is bonafide. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) deleted.

    Oxford Softech P. Ltd. vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10135 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section. 80IA

  4. Direct Tax ·ITAT Jaipur · 22 Apr 2016
    S. 40(a)(ia), though inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2013, is retrospective in operation because it is curative and intended to remedy an unintended consequence. Accordingly, if the payee has paid the tax, the payer will not suffer a disallowance

    Rakesh Tak vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10134 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 40(a)(ia)

  5. Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 22 Apr 2016
    S. 271(1)(c): Income-tax provisions are highly complicated and it is difficult for a layman to understand the same. Even seasoned tax professionals have difficulty in comprehending these provisions. Making a claim for deduction u/s S.80 IA which has numerous conditions is a complicated affair & cannot attract penalty

    Oxford Softech P. Ltd vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10133 (ITAT-DELHI)

  6. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 22 Apr 2016
    S. 40(a)(ia)/ 192: Employees deputed pursuant to a secondment agreement are not "employees" of the assessee and so the amounts paid by way of reimbursement of their salary is not subject to TDS in the assessee's hands

    DCIT vs. Mahanagar Gas Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10132 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 40(a)(ia), 192

  7. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 21 Apr 2016
    HC - Tribunal's order passed without dealing with its co-ordinate bench ruling makes the order a nonspeaking order and in breach of principles of natural justice.

    DSP Investment Private Limited vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10131 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 14A

  8. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 20 Apr 2016
    Fundamental principles of accrual of income under mercantile system of accounting explained in the context of waiver of income recoverable from person facing financial difficulties

    CIT. vs. Neon Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10130 (HC-BOMBAY)

  9. Direct Tax ·ITAT Chennai · 20 Apr 2016
    ITAT - Developer did not get building plan approved from competent authority, which is of utmost importance for implementation of JDA. Capital gains addition made on the basis of JDA entered by assessee to be deleted.

    Coromandel Cables Pvt Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10129 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  10. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 20 Apr 2016
    Failure by ITAT to grant an adjournment requested due to bereavement results in breach of principles of natural justice

    Zuari Global Ltd. vs. Pr. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10128 (HC-BOMBAY)

  11. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 20 Apr 2016
    S. 14A/ Rule 8D: Non-consideration by the ITAT of a judgement of the co-ordinate Bench makes the order a non-speaking one and breaches the principles of natural justice

    DSP Investment Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10127 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 14A

  12. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 20 Apr 2016
    Mere non-introduction of interest-bearing funds is not sufficient to conclude that gains from sale of shares are not business income

    Pine Tree Finserve Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10126 (HC-BOMBAY)

  13. Direct Tax ·Supreme Court · 19 Apr 2016
    SC - SLP Dismissed - “Wheeling charges” was not taxable as FTS u/s 194J.

    CIT-TDS. vs. Delhi Transco Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10125 (SC) · Section. 194J

  14. Direct Tax ·Supreme Court · 19 Apr 2016
    SC - SLP Dismissed - Surrender of Floor Area Ratio relating to land in favour of developer for construction of flats is transfer u/s 2(47).

    Dinesh Rankha vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10124 (SC)

  15. Direct Tax ·Supreme Court · 18 Apr 2016
    Important law on concept of "ancestral property" under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the formation of a HUF by the surviving members of the deceased explained

    Uttam vs. Saubhag Singh

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10123 (SC)

  16. Direct Tax ·ITAT Cochin · 18 Apr 2016
    S. 80-IB(7): Amounts by way of rent and other misc items, though shown as "other income" in the books, constitutes "key revenue category" as per ICAI Guidelines and are "derived" from the business of the hotel

    Kumarakom Lake Resort Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10122 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 80-IB(7)

  17. Direct Tax ·AAR · 18 Apr 2016
    AAR - Provision of coring services under a sub-contract, taxable at concessional rate u/s 44BB.

    Corpro Systems Limited UK

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10121 (AAR) · Section. 44BB

  18. Direct Tax ·Madras High Court · 19 Apr 2016
    HC - Payment to Tamil Nadu Industrial Development Corporation Limited for executing 99 years land lease deed is not rent. No TDS u/s 194I.

    TRIL Inforpark Limited vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10120 (HC-MADRAS) · Section. 194I

  19. Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 18 Apr 2016
    HC - Since conduct of petitioner not being forthcoming, this is not a fit case to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in foreign asset reassesment case.

    Soignee R. Kothari vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10119 (HC-BOMBAY)

  20. Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 15 Apr 2016
    Transfer Pricing Of Corporate Guarantees: Explanation i(c) to S. 92 B, though stated to be clarificatory and stated to be effective from 01.04.2002, has to be necessarily treated as effective from at best AY 2013-14 as it is an "anti abuse" provision. Dept’s submission that Bharti Airtel 161 TTJ 428 is “per incuriam” is not acceptable. Law laid down in Micro Ink 176 TTJ 8 (Ahd) on transfer pricing implications of corporate guarantees reiterated

    Siro Clinpharm Private Limited vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10118 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 92B

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.