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. Karnataka High Court · 15 Jan 2022
    The year 2021 was not leap year, thus, Assessee's 30 days period ended on Mar 18, 2021 to file objections which indeed was filed on Mar 16, 2021.

    Marvell India Pvt Ltd Vs NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28169 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 144C(2)

  2. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Jan 2022
    Just because money is received through banking channels and the confirmations are on record, it did not establish the genuineness of the transaction.

    Mishal Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28168 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 68

  3. ITAT Ahmedabad · 13 Jan 2022
    When the factual position and law is read conjointly, it appears that such capital receipts are not susceptible to tax u/s 115JB. The AO cannot bring such capital receipts to tax by including it in book profit artificially.

    Ganeshsagar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28167 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 15 Jan 2022
    Bad debts incurred by the assessee is certainly an expenditure allowable deduction u/s. 37 of the Act.

    Ravi Advani Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28166 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. ITAT Patna · 14 Jan 2022
    Section 263 does not permit PCIT to exercise revisionary jurisdiction on issues decided by CIT(A).

    Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28165 (ITAT-PATNA) · Section 144C

  6. ITAT Delhi · 15 Jan 2022
    Revenue is directed to delete the disallowance of ESOP expenditure.

    Aricent Technologies (Holdings)Limited Vs Addl. CIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28164 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37(1)

  7. ITAT Bangalore · 14 Jan 2022
    The expenditure in question has to be regarded as revenue expenditure.

    Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28163 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37(1)

  8. ITAT Bangalore · 15 Jan 2022
    The disallowance should be restricted to Rs.9.88 Cr. i.e. to the extent to which information was not furnished.

    HP India Sales Pvt. Ltd Vs JCIT (LTU)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28162 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 14 Jan 2022
    The scope of Section 69 cannot be extended to bringing to tax investments of a non-resident entity in the hands of a resident individual, in the absence of material to support the inference of beneficial ownership.

    Vilas Waman Katre Vs DCIT

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28161 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  10. Bombay High Court · 15 Jan 2022
    Reopening of assessment based on all the primary fact which were available at the time of original assessment with a view to take another view is a case of change of opinion and the same is prohibited

    Trent Ltd Vs The Deputy Commisioner of Income Tax-2(3)

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28160 (HC-BOMBAY)

  11. Delhi High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    Petitioner failed to disprove Respondents’ plea that the LOC was extended from time to time and was in existence on Feb 22, 2021 when the new OM with its guidelines came into effect. Therefore LOC is liable to be quashed.

    Vikas Chaudhary Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28159 (HC-DELHI)

  12. ITAT Bangalore · 13 Jan 2022
    Assessee has incurred expenses not only on account of social responsibility, but also keeping in mind the goodwill and benefit it would yield in the long run in earning profit. Hence this expenditure would be in the realm of business expenditure.

    M/S. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD., [FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ERSTWHILE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28158 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94971&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Delhi · 13 Jan 2022
    Where an assessment has been only processed under Section 143(1) of the Act, the reopening notice must satisfy the test of having reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

    INDERJEET KOHLI VERSUS DCIT CIRCLE – 38 (1) NEW DELHI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28157 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94976&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Delhi · 13 Jan 2022
    Where interest paid on overdraft account maintained with bank for purpose of business and all receipts are deposited in the overdraft account and all payments including taxes made from that account, the entire interest paid would be allowable deduction.

    SHRI DHARAM BHUSHAN JAIN VERSUS THE ACIT, CIRCLE – 61 (1) NEW DELHI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28156 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=94978&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. Madras High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    Circular No.14 of 2001 clarified that the restriction of 8 years for carry forward and set off of unabsorbed depreciation had been dispensed with.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI. VERSUS M/S. DCM HYUNDAI LIMITED

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28155 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86328&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Bombay High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    The jurisdictional conditions are not satisfied before the issuance of notice under Section 148

    THE GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD. VERSUS NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE/NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE & ORS.

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28154 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86333&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Bombay High Court · 13 Jan 2022
    If the Assessing Officer has to record the consideration bestowed by him on all issues raised during the assessment proceedings even where he is satisfied, then it would be impossible for the Assessing Officer to complete all the assessments which are required to be scrutinized by him under section 143 (3).

    PREETHI KITCHEN APPLIANCES PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 10 (3) (2) , MUMBAI

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28153 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=86334&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  18. Bombay High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    The AO made a false statement that the assessee’s submissions and objections were carefully considered and dealt with whereas they were not dealt with.

    Sharvah Multitrade Company Private Limited Vs Income Tax Oficer

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28152 (HC-BOMBAY)

  19. Madras High Court · 12 Jan 2022
    Where noticee seeks cross-examination, denial thereof would be violation of principles of natural justice.

    Marg Realities Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28151 (HC-MADRAS)

  20. ITAT Bangalore · 12 Jan 2022
    Merely giving license to the developer could not be said to be the possession within the meaning of Section 53A of TPA and the developer has to get the control over the land and not actual physical occupation of land.

    NG Balu Reddy, HUF Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2022) TaxCorp(LJ) 28150 (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.