All landmark rulings

21,662 rulings

Desk: Both Direct Tax GST

Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 28 Mar 2016
Section 147, reopening, reopening on factually erroneous premise, not permissible, change of opinion
Dr. Ajit Gupta vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10046 (HC-DELHI) · Section 147
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 28 Mar 2016
An addition on account of bogus purchases cannot be made only on the basis of information received from the MVAT department.
Imperial Imp & Exp vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10045 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Mar 2016
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.
Milestone Tradelinks P.Ltd vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10044 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Delhi · 28 Mar 2016
Reopening u/s 147 without application of mind is not valid
Suresh M Bajaj vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10043 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 147
Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 28 Mar 2016
HC - Rejected revenue’s erroneous interpretation that even prima facie merits cannot be considered by him while exercising his powers of stay u/s 220(6).
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation vs. CIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10042 (HC-BOMBAY)
Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 28 Mar 2016
Strictures passed against high-handed and unfair approach of AO (IRS Officer) in refusing to give an acknowledgement of stay application. Chief CIT directed to ensure such behaviour is not repeated. Dept directed to nominate another AO to hear stay application
Piramal Fund Management Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10041 (HC-BOMBAY)
Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 28 Mar 2016
S. 220(6): Dept directed to redeposit moneys collected illegally by attachment of assessee’s bank account during pendency of stay application. A order passed on a stay application must give reasons for the refusal to stay the demand
Khandelwal Laboratories Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10040 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 220(6)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 28 Mar 2016
Deduction of section-10B, transferring pricing adjustment on account of ECB from parent company
Intergarden India Pvt Ltd vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10039 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 10B
Direct Tax ·ITAT Jaipur · 28 Mar 2016
S. 68: Law on when share application moneys and share premium from private companies can be treated as bogus and assessed as cash credits explained
ACIT vs. Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10038 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 68
Direct Tax ·Calcutta High Court · 25 Mar 2016
S. 115JB: As the loss suffered on transfer of business was rightly debited to the P&L A/c as per AS 13, it cannot be added back to the Book Profits
CIT vs. Binani Cement Ltd
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10037 (HC-CALCUTTA) · Section 115JB
Direct Tax ·Bombay High Court · 25 Mar 2016
S. 195/ 40(a)(ia): Controversy whether in view of retrospective amendment to s. 195 to provide that s. 195 applies whether or not the non-resident person has a residence or place of business or business connection in India, even commission to non-resident agents for services rendered outside India is liable for TDS u/s 195 and has to suffer disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) to be reconsidered by ITAT
Sesa Resources Ltd vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10036 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 195, 40(a)(ia)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 24 Mar 2016
ITAT - Assesse justified in not offering the amount to tax on the ground that income did not accrue as Enron had gone bankrupt.
Bechtel International Inc vs. DDIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10035 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Jaipur · 24 Mar 2016
ITAT - Cessation of temporary work doesn’t amount to retrenchment. Exemption u/s 10(10B) not available.
Ambika Jyoti Datta vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10034 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section. 10(10B)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 24 Mar 2016
ITAT - 100% stay granted as outstanding-demand adjustment against refund /TDS
Huertey Petrochem SA vs. DCIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10033 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 23 Mar 2016
ITAT - FMV of land relevant for capital gains and not construction cost on transfer of land pursuant to a JDA.
ACIT. Vs. Shankar Vittal Motor Co. Ltd.
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10032 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Direct Tax ·ITAT Mumbai · 23 Mar 2016
ITAT - Amount received by Gavaskar from ESPN Star Sports for providing services as a presenter and commentator is available for deduction u/s .80RR.
Sunil Gavaskar vs. ITO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10031 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 80RR
Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 24 Mar 2016
HC - Sec. 194I applicable to hotel room tariffs.
Apeejay Surrendera Park Hotels Ltd. and ANR, Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Associations of India and ORS Vs Union of India
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10030 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 194I
Direct Tax ·Delhi High Court · 23 Mar 2016
No exemption to Indian National Congress for violating the conditions set out in Sec. 13A.
CIT. vs. Indian National Congress
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10029 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 13A
Direct Tax ·ITAT Bangalore · 22 Mar 2016
ITAT - Wealth tax to be levied on an urban land even though the land was part of the JDA.
Triad Resorts & Hotels P. Ltd. V. WTO
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10028 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Direct Tax ·AP High Court · 22 Mar 2016
HC - Even though contractor had sub-contracted majority work, still TDS credit will be available to contractor.
IVRCL- KBL(JV) Vs. ACIT
(2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10027 (HC-AP)

Headnote lines are open to everyone. The full headnote and the judgment text open with a subscription — see plans or sign in.