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 Mumbai · 04 Mar 2020
    Admittedly, AS-14 nowhere prescribed for different method of computation of net worth of undertaking acquired by way of slump sale for different purposes.

    Abhishri Packaging Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21161 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 03 Mar 2020
    Sec. 11 & 12 are the substantive provisions providing exemptions to charitable/religious Trusts while Sec. 12A & 12AA are procedural in nature providing for the procedural requirements for making an application to claim the benefits u/s. 11 & 12.

    Bandanthamma Mathu Kalamma Trust Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21160 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 12A

  3. ITAT Bangalore · 03 Mar 2020
    The payments made by the assessee is towards provision of bandwidth/telecommunications services for the use of, or right to use equipment.

    M/s. Vidal Health Insurance TPA Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Joint Commissioner of Income – tax (OSD)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21159 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Sections 9(1)(vi), 194J

  4. ITAT Kolkata · 03 Mar 2020
    There is no estoppel in law and therefore merely because in few cases the Department had issued NIL tax deduction certificate u/s 195 cannot be the sole reason for claiming that every payment made by the assessee to foreign attorneys was not liable to tax in India.

    Sri Subhatosh Majumder Vs ACIT

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21158 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 9(1)(vii)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Mar 2020
    Once the tribunal has held that the amounts collected by Ferani during the pendency of the suit and kept in FD's are amounts kept in custody of the court and not accessible to the Administrator till disposal of the suit and to be governed by the final order of the high court, then the amounts so collected cannot be considered to be income of the assessee. AO has brought to tax advances which the assessee had received during the period 1996-97 to 2008-09 totally ₹ 269,48,90,856/- under the head other source.

    ITO (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) -2 (1) (1) VERSUS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LATE MR. E.F. DINSHAW

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21157 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82157&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  6. ITAT Bangalore · 03 Mar 2020
    The expression does not form part of the total income u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act envisages that there should be actual receipt of income which was not includible in the total income, during the relevant previous year, for the purpose of disallowance of any expenditure incurred in relation to the said income. In other words, section 14A of the Act would not apply if no exempt income was received or receivable during the relevant previous year.

    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (3) , BENGALURU VERSUS M/S. COFFEE DAY GLOBAL LIMITED

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21156 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82160&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Kolkata · 03 Mar 2020
    Case file suggests that the clinching factual position herein is that the assessee had declared additional income of ₹12,56,69,73/- in its disclosure petition(s) before the Settlement Commission on 18.03.2014 for assessment year(s) 2010-11 to 2013-14. It is an admitted fact that the said additional income had not been included in the corresponding computation(s) finalized earlier.

    M/S MAITHAN STEEL & POWER LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21155 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82161&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Bangalore · 03 Mar 2020
    There is a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not deducting TDS on the LTC payments made towards foreign travel. Accordingly we hold that penalty u/s 271C is not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by the ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271C of the Act for the year under consideration.

    STATE BANK OF INDIA VERSUS THE ACIT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TDS, RANGE-3, BENGALURU

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21154 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82165&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  9. Gujarat High Court · 03 Mar 2020
    In the case of delayed deposit of employees’ contribution to PF, the same will not be deductable in computing income under section 28 of the Act.

    SEQUEL LOGOSTICS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21153 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82524&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  10. Madras High Court · 02 Mar 2020
    If ITSC decides against the assessee, holding that the contract was indivisible, there would be an additional tax liability upon the assessee, which demand can be raised only once a decision has been rendered in terms of Sec. 245D(4) on the issues posed before it, i.e., whether at all the income from offshore supply is liable to tax in India.

    M/s.Hitachi Power Europe GmbH Vs Income tax Settlement Commission Additional

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21152 (HC-MADRAS) · Section 245D(2C)

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 29 Feb 2020
    While we restrain from making any observations on the conduct of the representatives of the assessee, we find it difficult to believe that a big-4 accounting firm, as the assessee's representative before the DRP, as indeed before us, is, would really be oblivious of the correct legal position and it was anything less than a calculated ignorance, before the DRP, on the basic legal position.

    Technimont Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (IT)

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21151 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  12. MP High Court · 02 Mar 2020
    A conjoint reading of clause (d) of the proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 43 of the Act and the explanation attached to it makes it clear that if a transaction in trading of derivatives is carried out electronically on screen based system through a stock broker or sub-broker and it is supported by a time stamped contract note issued by such broker which indicates unique client identity and PAN number of the client, it shall be an eligible transaction” and shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction.

    PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, BHOPAL VERSUS M/S DIAMOND SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21150 (HC-MP) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82501&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Madras High Court · 02 Mar 2020
    The factual aspects of the affairs of the dissolved Company have to be gone into by the Assessing Officer and hence the learned Single Judge rightly remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer and issued directions as stated supra. Section 506(5) proviso (a) of the Companies Act and Chapter XV of the Income Tax Act which deals with liability in special cases and its clause (L) which deals with discontinuance of business or dissolution and these provisions provide as to how and in what manner the liability against such Company arising under the Companies Act and under the Income Tax Act is required to be dealt with.

    KAMALA MUTHIAH AS THE ERSTWHILE DIRECTOR OF M/S. M. CT. M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD. (NOW DISSOLVED) VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21149 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82503&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Calcutta High Court · 02 Mar 2020
    On creation of the trust the trustees apply for registration under Section 12AA. In that case, they would have to demonstrate the genuineness of the objects of the trust, only, before the Commissioner. Secondly, the other situation where the trustees carry on activities for sometime and then apply for registration. In that case, the genuineness of the objects as well as the genuineness of its activities have to be proved to the Commissioner.

    PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) VERSUS SHRI NATHJI GOVERDHAN NATHJI CHARITABLE TRUST

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21148 (HC-CALCUTTA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82508&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Delhi · 02 Mar 2020
    The machinery components have been imported in India to commission a custom-made plant for the buyer and those imported goods may not be used for any other customer. The assessee has been entrusted the work of commissioning of the TPD plant in view of the expertise in this field.

    M/S. VOITH PAPER GMBH VERSUS DDIT, CIRCLE-2 (2) , NEW DELHI

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21147 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82145&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Pune · 29 Feb 2020
    If the objections are invalid as time barred having not been filed within the time prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 144C, the AO will have to act in terms of Section 144C(3)(b) and complete the assessment within the time prescribed u/s 144C(4)(b) of the Act, namely, within one month from the end of the month in which the period of filing of objections under sub-section (2) expires.

    TDK ELECTRONICS AG (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EPCOS AG) C/O. EPCOS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT (IT), CIRCLE-1, PUNE

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21146 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82130&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Bombay High Court · 29 Feb 2020
    Auto-generated communication dated 24.3.2019 which contained the note of withholding of the refund in terms of Section 241A of the Act, does not satisfy any of the legal tests for passing said order. Firstly, it is not passed by the Assessing Officer who is competent to do so. Secondly, it is not even an order, it is a mere auto-generated communication. Thirdly, it does not contain any reasons recorded in writing and lastly it is not passed with the prior approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner.

    VODAFONE IDEA LIMITED VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CPC, JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD) -5 (2) (2), DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21145 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82486&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  18. P&H High Court · 29 Feb 2020
    The interpretation of the Tribunal is incorrect. Those clauses nowhere stipulates that the assessee is not bound to report to the agent any enquiry which may have received directly or indirectly. From reading of the agreement it is clear that no order can be processed by assessee without services the agent.

    VENUS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21144 (HC-P&H) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82488&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  19. Gujarat High Court · 29 Feb 2020
    The Tribunal committed an error in holding that the expenditure incurred on replacement of plant and machinery is a capital expenditure. In such circumstances, we answer the first substantial question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We take notice of the fact that while disturbing the finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A), the Tribunal has not assigned any good reason.

    PRECISION WIRES INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21143 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82489&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Bombay High Court · 29 Feb 2020
    Section 156 of the Act which deals with notice of demand and thereafter Rule 15 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which says that notice of demand under Section 156 shall be in Form No. VII. Clause (3) of Form VII provides that the notice of demand under Section 156 of the Act shall contain a provision informing the concerned assessee that if he did not pay the amount within the period specified, he would be liable to pay simple interest at one and one-half percent for every month or part of a month from the date commencing after end of the period in accordance with Section 220(2) of the Act.

    VINAY DOLATRAI VALIA VERSUS A.S. THAKUR & ORS.

    (2020) TaxCorp(LJ) 21142 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=82490&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

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.