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

15,856 rulings

  1. ITAT Bangalore · 05 Mar 2020
    The contribution made for creation of cricket academy can be held to be in business interest and hence allowable u/s 37.

    Royal Challengers Sports Pvt.Ltd

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21181 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 37

  2. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2020
    If the proportion of the expenditure are in conformity with the maintenance charges collected from the licensee, then it cannot be considered as part of the rental income.

    YJ Reality and Aviation Pvt Ltd Vs The DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21180 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  3. ITAT Delhi · 06 Mar 2020
    Merely because the assessee categorised the claim under penalty levied on the assessee company for not complying to the terms of the contract, is not permissible to jump to the conclusion that such penalty was in respect of any offence or infraction of law committed by the assessee.

    Mahavir MultitradePvt. Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21179 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 37(1)

  4. ITAT Delhi · 06 Mar 2020
    Assessee provided software development services, information technology enabled services and marketing support services to its associated enterprises on cost plus mark-up basis and availed of the management support services in the nature of legal, finance, human resource, information technology support and other support services from Avaya Singapore, thus companies functionally dissimilar with that of assessee need to be deselected from final list. Because of the absence of the profit motive and discharge of the social obligations, the Government companies stand on a different pedestal and are not good comparable to the entities like the assessee.

    AVAYA INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21178 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82214&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  5. ITAT Lucknow · 06 Mar 2020
    To decide this issue, it is important first to visit the statement of the director of the assessee which was recorded during the course of survey. We have particularly gone through the answer to question No. 35 wherein the director of the assessee has clearly stated that the figures noted in the diary represented sales unrecorded in the books of account and these figures related to the period April 2015 to August 2015.

    KANPUR ORGANICS PVT. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21177 (ITAT-LUCKNOW) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82215&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  6. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 06 Mar 2020
    For a query from the bench both the parties have replied that the AO has not dropped the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) before issue of show cause letter calling for explanation of assessee for levy of penalty u/s 271AAA. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the AO has applied his mind and initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and conducted the proceedings u/s 271AAA.

    T. SAIMATHA, T. SATYANARAYANA VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 (1) VISAKHAPATNAM

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21176 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82223&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Karnataka High Court · 06 Mar 2020
    All the expenses incurred for expansion of capital base of the company was directly related to the capital incidentally, that would help in profit making. When the object of the Assessee is to increase share capital, the expenses incurred in expanding share capital would be in capital field. In the instant case also the assessee with an object to increase share capital has incurred expenses in the form of payment of interest on account of delay in allotment of shares, yet the increase in capital results in expansion of the capital base of the company and may also help in profit making.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-2 (3), THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-11 (3) VERSUS GMR INDUSTRIES LTD

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21175 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82553&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Madras High Court · 06 Mar 2020
    In the case on hand, the impugned order came to be passed on 19.02.2019 and till the issuance of the assessment notices dated 15.07.2019 under Section 153A of the Act, the petitioner did not challenge the order of transfer and there is no explanation for the delay in challenge.

    V.V. MINERALS VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21174 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82554&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Bombay High Court · 05 Mar 2020
    After examining the requirement of Article 5 of the DTAA to constitute agency Permanent Establishment, Tribunal as a matter of fact held that none of the conditions as stipulated in Article 5(4) was applicable because Taj India was acting independently qua its distribution rights and the entire agreement was on principal to principal basis.

    Taj TV Limited Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21173 (HC-BOMBAY)

  10. Supreme Court · 05 Mar 2020
    The petitioner is allowed liberty to withdraw the present special leave petition, with further liberty to approach the authority under the Scheme.

    INTEC Corporation Vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21172 (SC)

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2020
    The mere issuance of draft assessment order, when it was legally not required to be issued, cannot end up enhancing the time limit for completing the assessment under section 143(3).

    IPF India Property Cyprus (No.1) Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21171 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  12. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2020
    Availing of net based services are outside the ambit of FTS provisions particularly when it cannot chargeable to tax in India and further as per the information submitted before us, the assessee has utilized these information outside India.

    Triton Communications Pvt. Ltd Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21170 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  13. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2020
    When the assessee was providing services to its members as well as non members, it can never be categorized under mutuality concept. The mutuality concept can be applied only when a mutual concern or AOP, who agree to contribute funds for common purpose and receive back the surplus left out in the same capacity in which they made the contribution. Therefore, the capacity as contributors and participants remain same. When they cannot separate the activities of participants and non members, they can never be considered as mutual concern.

    FIXED INCOME MONEY MARKET AND DERIVATIVES ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VERSUS ITO (E) – 1 (3), MUMBAI

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21169 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82195&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Pune · 05 Mar 2020
    Mere existence of the close connection and 'more than ordinary profits' are not enough to assume an arrangement as contemplated u/s. 80-IA(10) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is also required to prove any such arrangement existing which resulted in more than ordinary profits. The learned AO has not proved any arrangement between the parties in the facts of the case.

    THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE. VERSUS PERSISTENT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. AND (VICE-VERSA)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21168 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82196&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Mumbai · 05 Mar 2020
    The Ld.PCIT has questioned the issue of suppression of turnover, which is also a matter of deliberation by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings and hence, we are of the considered view that the Ld. PCIT was completely erred in invoking jurisdiction to revise the assessment order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961, in respect of very same issue of suppression of turnover, which was very much deliberated by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings.

    K.R. CONSTRUCTION BASEMENT VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-CENTRAL-3, MUMBAI

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21167 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82197&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Delhi · 05 Mar 2020
    It was the responsibility of the assessee to furnish documentary evidence in support that the NOIDA has paid tax to the Income-Tax department on lease rental income i.e. for the amount of the tax which was deductible on lease rental payment under reference, along with the interest. If the said interest has already been paid by the NOIDA, no recovery can be made from the assessee for the said amount of the interest.

    PRATEEK BUILDTECH (INDIA) PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE – 76 (1), NEW DELHI

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21166 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82198&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  17. ITAT Ahmedabad · 05 Mar 2020
    The answer certainly is in negative. It is because there can be a situation when the assessee is not able to generate any business but it has to incur the expenses to keep its business setup in existence. Thus in such a situation the assessee cannot be denied the claim of expenses incurred during the period when he was not able to generate the business. Furthermore, it is also important to note that the business is governed by the market forces which are beyond the control of the assessee.

    SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH VERSUS THE JCIT RANGE-10 AHMEDABAD, THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11 AHMEDABAD

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21165 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82200&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  18. Karnataka High Court · 05 Mar 2020
    It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied for the occupancy certificate along with the architect's certificate before the Bangalore Development Authority on December 29, 2006 well within the stipulated period of one year as enumerated in condition No. 5(ii) of the approval under the Scheme 2002 and the said occupancy certificate was issued on June 23, 2007.

    SOFTZONE TECH PARK LTD. VERSUS CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND UOI, REPSENTED BY THE SECRETARY, THE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY & PROMOTION

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21164 (HC-KARNATKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82539&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  19. Supreme Court · 04 Mar 2020
    The amount of Rs.495.24 crores deposited towards payment of tax and the amount of Rs.2806.40 crores which stands deposited and invested in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be subject to the decision to be taken by the concerned Authority on merits or to such directions as may be issued by the Appellate Authority.

    Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21163 (SC)

  20. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 04 Mar 2020
    As per Sec.115BBC any trust or institution, receiving anonymous donations, is not required to mention identity/address and other particulars in the books.

    G.S.L. Educational Society Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21162 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · Section 271AAB

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.