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. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2021
    Seismic survey equipment used in the project of exploration of mineral oils by OIL and ONGC is eligible for special rate of depreciation at 60% falling under clause (xii) of Depreciation Schedule relating to Mineral oil concerns.

    Asian Oilfield Services Limited Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26296 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 05 Mar 2021
    Amendment to Sec.201(3) extending the period of limitation to 7 years by Finance Act 2014 is applicable prospectively.

    Life Insurance Corporation Of India Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26295 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 192

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 05 Mar 2021
    There is no dispute that the search officials did not unearth any material to show that the agricultural income declared in the returns of income filed prior to the date of search and other receipts declared by the assessee are bogus, i.e., there is no incriminating material to disprove the claim of the assessee.

    V. Ramprasad Raju Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-VI

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26294 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 04 Mar 2021
    When Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court holds the law in a particular way, it is our bounden duty to follow the same in letter and in spirit.

    Bank of India Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. ITAT Delhi · 04 Mar 2021
    Matter attains Limited Finality in the first stage (before AO) when assessee explains his case to the satisfaction of AO because Revenue has no right of appeal against the order of the AO barring exceptional circumstances u/s 147, 263, 264, 154 etc.

    Energy Infratech Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26292 (ITAT-DELHI)

  6. ITAT Delhi · 04 Mar 2021
    ROC fees paid are to be considered as preliminarily expenditure within the meaning of Section 35D and directs the Revenue to delete the disallowance.

    Rockland Diagnostics Services Pvt. Ltd Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26291 (ITAT-DELHI)

  7. ITAT Chennai · 04 Mar 2021
    Service tax paid out of pocket is an item of expenses deductible u/s 37(1).

    FIH India Private Limited Vs The DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26290 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 37

  8. ITAT Chennai · 04 Mar 2021
    Expenses towards gifts given to the doctors by the assessee are nothing but sales promotion, which, are allowable under section 37(1).

    ICARUS Health Care P Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26289 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 37

  9. Aar High Court · 03 Mar 2021
    There was no requirement to ascertain that the amount paid under section 115BBA was chargeable to tax or not. Even if it was not chargeable it did not absolve the Applicant from the liability to deduct TDS under section 194E.

    LG Electronics India Private Ltd Vs Pr. CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26282 (HC-AAR)

  10. Supreme Court · 02 Mar 2021
    What is of importance is that once a DTAA applies, the provisions of the Income Tax Act can only apply to the extent that they are more beneficial to the assessee and not otherwise.

    Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Private Limited Vs THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26281 (SC)

  11. Delhi High Court · 02 Mar 2021
    The existence of incriminating material found during the course of the search is a sine qua non for making additions pursuant to a search and seizure operation.

    Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) Vs PCIT (CENTRAL) – 3

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26280 (HC-DELHI) · Section 153A

  12. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Mar 2021
    Application under Rule 24 of ITAT Rules is not guided by any time limit and sufficient cause for non-appearance is the only requirement.

    Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs The DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26279 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  13. ITAT Bangalore · 01 Mar 2021
    The parties should have performed or should have shown willingness to perform obligations mentioned in the contract to attract provisions of Sec. 53A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to fall under the scope of deemed transfer u/s 2(47)(v).

    N. A. Haris Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26278 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 2(47)

  14. Aar High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Statutory expenses should not be considered as operational expenditure.

    BG Asia Pacific Holding Pte. Limited Vs CIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26265 (HC-AAR)

  15. ITAT Delhi · 26 Feb 2021
    Income attributable to PE in India being less than the remuneration paid to the dependent agent, it extinguishes the assessment and requires no further exercise for computation of income.

    Ricardo UK Limited Vs DCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26264 (ITAT-DELHI)

  16. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Feb 2021
    Non-disposal of appeal could not be attributed to assessee.

    Indianoil Skytanking Pvt. Ltd Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26263 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  17. Delhi High Court · 26 Feb 2021
    Application filed by the petitioner in March, 2017 invoking, Rule 24 was within time and could not have been dismissed applying the provisions of limitation applicable to Section 254(2).

    Pradeep Kumar Jindal Vs PCIT

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26262 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254(2)

  18. Supreme Court · 25 Feb 2021
    Although in Vijaya Bank, provisions of Sec. 18 applied, the ratio propounded therein continues to hold good.

    The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26256 (SC)

  19. Supreme Court · 25 Feb 2021
    In view of the second proviso to Section 153A of the said Act, once assessment got abated the assessee as well as revenue to make claims for allowance or to make disallowance.

    Jsw Steel Ltd Vs PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26255 (SC) · Sections 153A, 139

  20. ITAT Kolkata · 25 Feb 2021
    CIT(A) has not enquired properly which fact is discernible from the show cause notice. According to us, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad for not conducting proper enquiry and for non-application of mind.

    United Teleservices Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Incometax

    (2021) TaxCorp(LJ) 26254 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

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.