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

15,843 rulings

  1. Madras High Court · 12 Oct 2020
    Once a statutory amendment is being made to remove an undue hardship to the assessee or to remove an apparent incongruity, such an amendment has to be treated as effective from the date on which the law, containing such an undue hardship or incongruity, was introduced.

    The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Shri Vummudi Amarendran

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24410 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 50C

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 09 Oct 2020
    The assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default in respect of payments made for purchase of licensed software prior to 15.10.2011, being the date of pronouncement of the decision in the case of Samsung Electronics.

    M/s. Acer India Private Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax (IT)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24394 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  3. ITAT Cuttack · 09 Oct 2020
    The necessary condition under proviso to Sec. 147 is that escapement of income from assessment must also be occasioned by the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, fully and truly and merely having a reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, is not sufficient to reopen the assessment.

    DCIT Vs M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24393 (ITAT-CUTTACK)

  4. ITAT Delhi · 09 Oct 2020
    Mere receipt of service using equipment under the control, possession and operation of service provider would only be transaction of a service and not to use or right to use an equipment, and would not attract Royalty under the Act or the Tax Treaty.

    Telstra Singapore Pte.Ltd. Vs The DCIT (International Taxation)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24392 (ITAT-DELHI)

  5. ITAT Bangalore · 09 Oct 2020
    The relevant point of time at which consideration received as share application money pending allotment becomes consideration for issue of shares, is when shares are allotted/issued to the share applicant.

    Taaq Music Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24391 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 56(2)(viib)

  6. ITAT Kolkata · 08 Oct 2020
    Assessee has failed to demonstrate the total turnover before expenses, which was required by the assessing officer and ld CIT(A), thus assessee has failed to substantiate his claim, hence there should be made an addition of INR 17,95,000 as unexplained income u/s 68 of the Act.

    Rajnarayan Prasad Singh, Guwahati Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24390 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 68

  7. ITAT Bangalore · 08 Oct 2020
    Membership of a stock exchange not only has an element of permanency but also has the element of being a source of income and, therefore, it must be held to be in the nature of a capital asset.

    M/s. BGSE Financials Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24389 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  8. Madras High Court · 08 Oct 2020
    By deciding the question of limitation of AY 2000-01 against Revenue, and by holding that there was no tax liability for AY 2003-04 and AY 2004-05, these two sets of orders passed by ITAT have resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice, which cannot be permitted.

    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Emgeeyar Pictures P.Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24382 (HC-MADRAS)

  9. ITAT Delhi · 08 Oct 2020
    It cannot be held that revenue derived by the assessee for distribution of products is taxable as royalty albeit it is a business income of the assessee.

    Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific Inc. Vs DDIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24381 (ITAT-DELHI)

  10. Madras High Court · 07 Oct 2020
    The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer by virtually reopening the proceedings concluded under Section 201 of the Act pursuant to the order dated 03.2.2014 passed by the CIT(A) concerned.

    M/s.Sutherland Global ServicesPvt. Ltd. Vs The Commissioner of Income Tax-6

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24370 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 40(i)(ia)

  11. Karnataka High Court · 07 Oct 2020
    In respect of non- residents, Sec. 195 puts an obligation on the payer, i.e. any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, to deduct income-tax at source at the rates in force and thus the entire tax is to be deducted at source which is payable on such payments made by the payer to the non-resident.

    Texas Instruments Incorporated Vs The Director Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24369 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 234B

  12. Madras High Court · 06 Oct 2020
    Assessee has an option to adopt NAV method or DCF method and unless the AO is able to bring out any evidence of abuse of benevolent provisions with an intention to defraud the revenue, the option given to the assessee shall be held to be absolute.

    Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.VVA Hotels Private Limited

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24368 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 56(2)(viib)

  13. Bombay High Court · 06 Oct 2020
    In the light of the lockdown such explanation cannot be brushed aside or rejected as being flimsy or frivolous. This is more so in view of the beneficial nature of the order dated 03.04.2020.

    Vijaykumar Satramdas Lakhani Vs Central Board of Direct Taxes and another

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24367 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 197

  14. Karnataka High Court · 05 Oct 2020
    When a new rule in place of an old rule is substituted, the old one is never intended to keep alive and the substitution has the effect of deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative.

    Autodesk Asia Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Director of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24365 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  15. ITAT Delhi · 05 Oct 2020
    There is no provision under the Income-tax Act for an assessee to have any such registered office and the company can opt any address under the Income-tax Act for communication by the revenue with the assessee as is specifically mentioned in the Rule 127.

    Jindal Fittings Ltd. Vs DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24364 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68

  16. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Oct 2020
    Since the information furnished by the deductors to Income Tax authorities refers to the assessee only and not to the investors, the AO was required to give credit to the assesse.

    Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s Mile Stone Real Estate

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24353 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  17. Madras High Court · 01 Oct 2020
    In terms of Section 14A, the only expenditure, which was proved to be incurred in relation to earning of tax free income, could be disallowed and such provision could not be extended to disallow the expenditure, which was assumed to have been incurred for earning tax free income.

    The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Celebrity Fashion Ltd.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24346 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 14A

  18. Karnataka High Court · 01 Oct 2020
    In case, a residential unit is allotted prior to 01.04.2010, the conveyance in such a residential unit can be registered subsequently also and in such a case also the assessee will be entitled to the benefit of deduction u/s 80IB (10).

    Mandavi Builders Vs The CIT, The DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24345 (HC-KARNATKATA) · Section 80-IB

  19. ITAT Bangalore · 01 Oct 2020
    The delay in filing of statement is to be counted from the date of payment of TDS because before the payment of TDS, the quarterly statement cannot be filed and if we compute the delay in this manner, the delay is of 12 days only.

    Shri. Sandeep Samantha Vs The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24344 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 234E

  20. ITAT Delhi · 01 Oct 2020
    Once genuineness of the borrowing is proved, it is not within the powers of the AO to disallow the deduction on the ground that the rate of interest is unreasonably high or that the assessee had himself charged a lower rate of interest on the money which it has advanced.

    DLF Limited Vs JCIT, DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 24343 (ITAT-DELHI)

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.