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

15,812 rulings

  1. ITAT Delhi · 12 Sep 2022
    No disallowances under Section 36(1)(va) can be made on account of delayed payment of PF and ESIC, if such payments are made before the due date of filing of the return.

    Ramky Energy and Environment Limited Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30047 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80-IA

  2. Delhi High Court · 12 Sep 2022
    If Assessee succeeds in the SLP filed before the SC, it will be entitled to apply for compounding of the offences for the said AYs.

    Viraj Exports Private Limited & Anr Vs THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30046 (HC-DELHI)

  3. ITAT Delhi · 10 Sep 2022
    No disallowance under Section 40A(3) can be made where seller of agricultural land insisted on payment in cash and deletes the addition.

    Geo Connect Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30045 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 40A(3)

  4. ITAT Surat · 10 Sep 2022
    Due to non-submission of details by Assessee after issuing show cause by competent authority and non compliance of notice under Section 142(1), addition is made on the basis of documents found from the premises which is also accepted by the Assessee during search.

    Gordhanbhai L. Talavia Vs D.C.I.T.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30044 (ITAT-SURAT)

  5. ITAT Bangalore · 10 Sep 2022
    If any issue had not been considered and decided by the First Appellate Authority, then on such matters, the CIT has powers to exercise revisionary jurisdiction under section 263.

    Brocade Communications Systems Pvt. Ltd Vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30043 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 263

  6. Delhi High Court · 10 Sep 2022
    Revenue is directed to pass fresh order under Section 148A(d) considering the response of the Assessee within six weeks.

    Mahashian Di Hatti Pvt. Limited Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30042 (HC-DELHI)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 10 Sep 2022
    Provision of Section 68 cannot be invoked where share subscription transaction are channeled through bank and wherein the identity and creditworthiness is established.

    Sejima Texyarn Pvt Ltd Vs ITO

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30041 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68

  8. ITAT Delhi · 10 Sep 2022
    Section 269SS prior to Finance Act 2015 amendment applies to loans and deposits but does not apply to the advance received as the said amendment is not retrospective in nature.

    Ruhil Developers Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30040 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 269SS, 271D

  9. Allahabad High Court · 10 Sep 2022
    Non disposal of application for registration within the period of 6 months as stipulated under Section 12AA(2) will not result in a deemed grant of registration.

    Raghuraji Devi Foundation Trust Vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30039 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · Section 12AA

  10. Supreme Court · 09 Sep 2022
    Parties would be entitled to raise all pleas and contentions including reliance on the judgment in the case of Engineering Analysis and the contention of the Revenue that notwithstanding the said judgment, the payments would be covered under the head Royalty etc.

    Infosys Technologies Ltd.ETC Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30038 (SC)

  11. Supreme Court · 08 Sep 2022
    For rectification of errors statutory remedy exists in law.

    Anshul Jain Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30031 (SC)

  12. ITAT Kolkata · 08 Sep 2022
    Service tax collected by service providers is not the income of the service provider since service provider acts as a collecting agency for the Government for collection of service tax.

    Cathay Pacific airways Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30030 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 44BBA

  13. Calcutta High Court · 07 Sep 2022
    ITAT is justified in scrutinising the materials on record and since ITAT finding is entirely factual, no substantial question of law arises therefrom.

    Linde India Ltd Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30024 (HC-CALCUTTA)

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 06 Sep 2022
    Revenue is direct to adopt the valuation of Rs 3,833/share computed on the basis of the fair market value of the net assets.

    Sushiladevi R Somani Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30017 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  15. ITAT Kolkata · 05 Sep 2022
    A Protocol to DTAA is its integral part and carries the same binding force as the MFN clause therein.

    Koninklijke Philips N.V Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30011 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  16. Delhi High Court · 05 Sep 2022
    Section 148A(d) order identifies the transaction specifically which was subject matter of SCNs.

    Saroj Chandna Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30010 (HC-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Chennai · 03 Sep 2022
    Despite having a noble objective, Assessee could not be said to be a charitable trust eligible for registration under Section 12AA.

    Dhan Housing and Habitat Development of Poor for Empowerment Confederation Vs CIT (Exemptions)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30009 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Sep 2022
    Assessee has not produced the receipts in case of donation of Rs.65.34 Lacs paid to Bharatiya Janata Party, but demonstrated the same through Assessee’s bank account.

    Lodha Developers Ltd. Vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30008 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  19. Delhi High Court · 03 Sep 2022
    There is no provision in the VSV Act prohibiting award of interest on delayed refund, the VSV Act does not authorise the respondent to either delay or withhold the payment of the refund.

    Anjul Vs OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-12, & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30007 (HC-DELHI)

  20. Delhi High Court · 03 Sep 2022
    The Revenue provided less than 7 days to furnish the reply to show cause notice whereas Section 148A(b) provides that a period of not less than 7 days has to be provided.

    Nidhi Bindal Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(1), DELHI & ANR

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 30006 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 148A(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.