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

15,824 rulings

  1. Madras High Court · 02 Feb 2022
    When the Appellate Tribunal has factually recorded the finding that there was no suppression of facts and the assessee has originally disclosed the receipt of the sale property, merely claimed deduction it cannot be said that there was wilful evasion of Tax.

    SHRI. H. AMEERDEEN VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD 3 (1), CHENNAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28290 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86449&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Karnataka High Court · 02 Feb 2022
    The genuineness of the activities of the Trust is not a matter to be looked into at the time of dealing with the issue of registration of the Trust u/s 12AA.

    PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTIONS BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. EMBASSY CHARITABLE TRUST

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28289 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86450&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Madras High Court · 02 Feb 2022
    As long as there is no deliberate Act or willful act on the part of the accused to evade the payment of tax, mere failure to pay the tax will not constitute the offence under Section 276C(2).

    S.P. VELAYUTHAM VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NON CORPORATE CIRLCE – 14 (1) , CHENNAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28288 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86451&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  4. ITAT Delhi · 31 Jan 2022
    Deduction under section 54F of the Act can be claimed to the extent of amount of capital gain utilized till the filing of the return under Section 139(4) of the Act.

    SMT. CHANDER KANTA MAHESHWARI VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35 (2)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28287 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95303&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  5. ITAT Delhi · 31 Jan 2022
    Once learned PCIT has no administrative power under Section 263(1) of the Act to revise the order of the TPO, he cannot revise the assessment order passed thereafter in compliance to the provision contained under Section 92CA(4).

    M/S JCB INDIA LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-13 (2) NEW DELHI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28286 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95305&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  6. ITAT Mumbai · 31 Jan 2022
    In the present case for assessment year 2005 - 06 there is no transfer of asset, and therefore, there is no chargeability of capital gain u/s 45 of the act.

    STANDARD CHARTERED BANK CRESCENZO VERSUS THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) , MUMBAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28285 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95312&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 31 Jan 2022
    Even on merits the assessee’s claim for depreciation on spectrum fee is allowable under section 32 of the Act as the provisions contained under section 35ABB of the Act being not applicable to the issue at hand.

    M/S. VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED, (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IDEA CELLULAR LTD.) VERSUS PCIT-CIRCLE (5) , MUMBAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28284 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95314&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Ahmedabad · 31 Jan 2022
    There cannot be a penalty where there was bond fide error in the claim.

    M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD., C/O. ANUJ MEHTA VERSUS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3 (1) (3) , AHMEDABAD.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28283 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95315&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  9. ITAT Ahmedabad · 31 Jan 2022
    Once the genuineness of the transaction is not free from doubt, it is implied that the creditworthiness of the parties was not satisfactory so as to advance the loan to the assessee.

    DCIT CIRCLE-1 (1) (1), AHMEDABAD VERSUS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD. [FORMERLY KNOWN AS J.P. FINCORP SERVICES PVT. LTD.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28282 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=95316&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  10. ITAT Hyderabad · 11 Jun 2021
    The Assessee has already offered the rental income under the head house property. Therefore, assessee is allowed to claim all eligible deductions including interest on borrowed capital.

    Hima Bindu Putta Vs ITO

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28281 (ITAT-HYDERABAD) · Section 24

  11. ITAT Indore · 10 Jun 2021
    The service of notice cannot be termed as valid and is non-compliant to the provisions of Sec. 282.

    Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28280 (ITAT-INDORE) · Sections 143(2), 282

  12. Delhi High Court · 08 Jun 2021
    The Revenue is bound to grant personal hearing if the statute itself provides for the same.

    Ritnand Balved Education Foundation Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28279 (HC-DELHI)

  13. Delhi High Court · 08 Jun 2021
    When statute itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the Revenue cannot veer away from the same.

    Satia Industries Limited Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28278 (HC-DELHI)

  14. ITAT Delhi · 07 Jun 2021
    Penalty not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) owing its corresponding deletion of addition in the quantum appeal.

    Bhushan Lal Sawhney Vs The DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28277 (ITAT-DELHI)

  15. ITAT Mumbai · 11 Jun 2021
    The Assessee has provided the details of the parties to whom interest is paid including banks, non-banking finance companies and some private lenders at a rate ranging from 5% to 24% p.a, but CIT(A) failed to prove any related party transaction within the meaning of Sec. 40A.

    Shri Bhavarlal Mangilal Jain Vs The ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28276 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 36(1)(iii)

  16. ITAT Agra · 07 Jun 2021
    HUF is entitled to the benefit of Sec. 54B even prior to insertion of the words the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family by the Finance Act 2013.

    Sitaram Pahariya (HUF) Vs I.T.O – Ward 6(3)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28275 (ITAT-AGRA) · Section 54B

  17. ITAT Dehradun · 04 Jun 2021
    Inappropriate words in the penalty notice were not struck off and the notice does not specify under which limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) was the penalty proceedings initiated. Therefore penalty is being deleted.

    Deshpal Singh Kohli Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28274 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)

  18. ITAT Pune · 04 Jun 2021
    Mere doubt cannot lead to revision of assessment order unless shown that AO failed to apply his mind, or that his view was wrong in facts or law.

    Shivratan Shrigopal Mundada Vs ACIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28273 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section 54F

  19. ITAT Indore · 04 Jun 2021
    No details are filed about the type of business and prime facie it seems Assessee is offering business income on a presumptive basis, liable to be taxed u/s 44AF/44AD.

    Chandra Sahu Vs ITO

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28272 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 69A

  20. ITAT Bangalore · 29 Jan 2022
    Period of four years would be reasonable period of time for initiation of proceeding under section 201.

    Mphasis Ltd Vs DDIT (International Tax)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28271 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

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.