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

15,829 rulings

  1. Delhi High Court · 11 Mar 2021
    No substantial question of law arose for its consideration.

    Krishan Kumar Modi Vs PCIT (CENTRAL) -3

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26337 (HC-DELHI)

  2. Supreme Court · 11 Mar 2021
    There is no mechanism to enable to collect STT beyond client code.

    NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE Vs Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-7

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26336 (SC)

  3. Supreme Court · 11 Mar 2021
    Scope of post search assessment should be limited to incriminating evidence found during search only.

    SKS ISPAT AND POWER LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL IV MUMBAI

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26335 (SC) · Section 153A

  4. Supreme Court · 11 Mar 2021
    Assessee is entitled to avail of the unabsorbed depreciation beyond the period of 8 years, prescribed under the pre-amendment Section 32.

    Central Electronics Ltd. Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI 2

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26334 (SC)

  5. Supreme Court · 11 Mar 2021
    Counsel for Revenue was unable to dispute the legal proposition laid down in the aforementioned ruling, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

    Jindal Aluminium Ltd Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIT (A) & ANR.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26333 (SC) · Section 80-IA

  6. ITAT Chennai · 10 Mar 2021
    Issue price is not justifiable as per any scientific method or Rule 11UA.

    Sindya Securities and Investments Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26329 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  7. ITAT Chennai · 10 Mar 2021
    Though the reason given by Assessee for filing the appeal is neither convincing nor satisfactory, since the assessee intends to go for VIvad-Se-Vishwas Scheme and pay the resulting taxes and put an end to the litigation, we are convinced that the delay needs to be condoned as a special case.

    Shri Subramanyan Kumar Vs The ACIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26328 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  8. ITAT Delhi · 10 Mar 2021
    It has become apparently clear that due to apathy of the Revenue Department, assessee has been pushed to protracted litigation since 2010 as he is running from pillar to post to get refund otherwise admissible to him.

    Jasjit Singh Vs ITO

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26327 (ITAT-DELHI)

  9. ITAT Pune · 10 Mar 2021
    Expenses incurred by the assessee in foreign exchange should be reduced from both the export turnover as well as total turnover while computing deduction u/ss.10A/10AA.

    Barclays Shared Services Private Limited Vs ACIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26326 (ITAT-PUNE) · Sections 10A, 10AA

  10. ITAT Forein · 10 Mar 2021
    The Canadian tax system is one of self-assessment and self-reporting, which was accepted by the Minister as filed, remarks that there is no evidence that the Minister applied the test of central management and control for the aforementioned years.

    Landbouwbedrijf Backx B.V Vs Her Majesty The Queen

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26325 (ITAT-Forein)

  11. ITAT Delhi · 09 Mar 2021
    Goodwill would fall under the expression any other business or commercial right of a similar nature as per Sec.32(1)(ii).

    JX Nippon Two Lubricants India Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26318 (ITAT-DELHI)

  12. Delhi High Court · 09 Mar 2021
    Revenue did not lead any evidence to show connection of accused Director No. 2 with undisclosed income; After submission of ITR under Sec. 139(1), Revenue conducted search and seizure operations under Sec. 132 following which assessee company disclosed additional income of Rs. 1.21 Crore.

    M/s. Shourya Tower (P) Ltd. Vs ITO

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26317 (HC-DELHI)

  13. ITAT Bangalore · 09 Mar 2021
    The circumstances surrounding the case are not strong enough to justify the rejection of the assessee's plea of asking the copies of seized material and providing an opportunity of cross examination of the parties concerned.

    D.S. Suresh Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26316 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  14. ITAT Delhi · 08 Mar 2021
    ESI/PF dues paid beyond prescribed period is not an allowable deduction.

    Dabur India Limited Vs Addl. CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26315 (ITAT-DELHI) · Sections 80IB, 80IC

  15. ITAT Chennai · 08 Mar 2021
    For invoking the provisions of section 41(1), the prerequisite is that the liability sought to be treated as income must have been claimed as a deduction during any earlier AYs and in the present year, the assessee must have derived some benefit on account of remission or cessation of liability.

    Ravindra Arunachala Nadar Vs The ACIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26314 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 41(1)

  16. Supreme Court · 02 Mar 2021
    Taxability of sums received for supply of software as "royalty": Given the definition of royalties contained in Article 12 of the DTAAs, the amounts paid by resident Indian end-users/ distributors to non-resident computer software manufacturers/suppliers, as consideration for the resale/use of the computer software through EULAs/distribution agreements is not the payment of royalty for the use of copyright in the computer software and that the same does not give rise to any income taxable in India, as a result of which the persons referred to in section 195 of the Income Tax Act were not liable to deduct any TDS under section 195 of the Income Tax Act. The provisions contained in the Income Tax Act (section 9(1)(vi), along with explanations 2 and 4 thereof), which deal with royalty, not being more beneficial to the assessees, have no application in the facts of these cases

    Engineering Analysis Centre Of Excellence Private Limited vs. CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26307 (SC)

  17. Delhi High Court · 03 Mar 2021
    S. 153A, 153C search assessments: (i) A statement recorded u/s 132(4) has evidentiary value but cannot justify the additions in the absence of corroborative material. (ii) The statement also cannot, on a standalone basis, constitute 'incriminating material' so as to empower the AO to frame a block assessment u/s 153A (iii) If the statement was recorded in the course of search conducted in the case of a third party, and assuming the statement is construed as 'incriminating material belonging to or pertaining to a person other than person searched', the only legal recourse available to the department is to proceed in terms of S. 153C of the Act by handing over the same to the AO who has jurisdiction over such person. An assessment framed u/s 153A on the basis of alleged incriminating material (being the statement recorded under 132(4) of the Act) is not valid. The Assessee also had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness (All imp judgements referred)

    PCIT (Central) – 3 vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF)

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26306 (HC-DELHI) · Sections 153A, 153C

  18. ITAT Bangalore · 05 Mar 2021
    The permission to enter by way of license so granted shall not however be construed as delivery of possession of the scheduled property in part performance of any conduct as defined u/s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act r.w.s.2(47)(v) & (vi) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

    Prestige Estates Projects Ltd Vs The Asst.Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26299 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 194-IA

  19. Delhi High Court · 05 Mar 2021
    The shares in the present scenario were not subscribed to by any sister concern or closely related person, but by outside investors and if they have seen certain potential and accepted this valuation, then Appellant-Revenue cannot question their wisdom.

    Cinestaan Entertainment Pvt Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26298 (HC-DELHI)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2021
    In the instant case assessee is not payer of money but only the remitter which is collected from the users on behalf of Uber B.V., as it entered into contract with driver-partners and not the assessee.

    Uber India Systems Private Limited Vs Jt. CIT (TDS)(OSD)-2(3)

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26297 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 194C

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.