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 · 27 Dec 2019
    Income from overseas branch is taxable in the country where the branch is established. The profits of overseas branch are taxable in India, thus accepting assessee's plea. These two divergent views by two different benches of the Tribunal has made the issue debatable. The jurisdictional HC has admitted substantial question of law on the issue of place of taxability of profits earned by the overseas. It is a trait law that where the issue is debatable no penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable, and thus deletes the penalty levied by the Department.

    Johnson & Johnson Ltd Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20701 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)

  2. ITAT Bangalore · 27 Dec 2019
    Where the assessee society is having more than 15% Associated Members, there is a violation of the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 and in that situation, assessee is not eligible for deduction u/s. 80P.

    Kanakadas Pattin Sahakari Sangh Niyamit Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20700 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 80P

  3. ITAT Ahmedabad · 27 Dec 2019
    Technical service payments made by assessee-company to a resident/national of South Korea during AY 2015-16, shall not be taxable in India in view of Article 15 of the India-Korea DTAA on Independent Personal Services. There is absent fixed base in India. Therefore TDS u/s. 195 is inapplicable.

    J.Korin Spinning Pvt. Ltd Vs The Income Tax Officer, (International Taxation)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20699 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 27 Dec 2019
    Keeping in mind learned CIT(A)'s finding that assessee has indulged in dubious transaction of claiming forfeiture, it would show that the amount involved has been correctly reduced from the value of assets of the assesse.

    The Supreme Industries Limited Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20698 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. ITAT Pune · 27 Dec 2019
    In the present case, some undisclosed business income was admitted to have been earned (Rs.25L) and simultaneously some undisclosed expenditure (Rs.26L) was also incurred which had a direct relation with earning the income. Once this is the position, we fail to appreciate as to how any addition other than Rs.1.00 lakh on this score can be made there is no reason for making or sustaining any addition over and above this amount.

    Travelline International Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20697 (ITAT-PUNE)

  6. ITAT Kolkata · 27 Dec 2019
    There being no change in the facts and circumstances during the year under consideration, there is no justification of the AO in imputing interest income on the debit balance of the said partner and subjecting the same to tax in the hands of the assesse.

    India Housing Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20696 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 26 Dec 2019
    Merely because the assessee has claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act, by treating the flat as a commercial property, assessee's claim of deduction under section 54 of the Act cannot be disallowed if the assessee fulfills the conditions of section 54 of the Act. Merely because the assessee claimed a deduction under the wrong provision, his claim cannot be disallowed if it is allowable under a different provision , thus directs AO to allow assessee's claim of deduction u/s 54.

    Satish S. Prabhu Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20695 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 54

  8. Supreme Court · 24 Dec 2019
    It is well-settled that the dismissal of an SLP against an order or judgment of a lower forum is not an affirmation of the same. If such an order of this Court is non-speaking, it does not constitute a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, or attract the doctrine of merger. In such a situation, it is open for us to proceed to decide the instant appeals uninfluenced by the prior orders of this Court dismissing SLPs against the grant of relief to drivers placed similarly as the Appellants.

    P. Singaravelan & Ors. Etc. Etc Vs The District Collector, Tiruppur and DT & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20694 (SC)

  9. ITAT Bangalore · 26 Dec 2019
    There is no requirement of transfer of any capital asset being shares only requirement is that a shareholder receives a consideration from a company for purchase of its own shares. This judgment is an authority regarding applicability of section 46A in respect of receipt by shareholder on account of buy back of shares from the concerned company but there was no argument or decision about applicability of section 47 (iv) of I T Act.

    M/s. Acciona Wind Energy Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20693 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · Section 47(iv)

  10. ITAT Ahmedabad · 26 Dec 2019
    Since the CIT(A) did not jurisdiction to replace the full sale consideration disclosed by the assessee with FMV, there was no need to examine the justification of valuation report in support of sale consideration shown by the assessee vis-à-vis FMV determined by the CIT(A). The assessee is entitled for claim of capital loss suffered by it on sale of shares amounting to Rs.5,17,82,554/-.

    DCIT Vs Shreno Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20692 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  11. ITAT Jaipur · 26 Dec 2019
    The undisputed facts are that the assessee, Shri Bhura Ram had expired on 26.11.2008 as per death certificate dated 11.02.2009 issued by Jaipur Municipal Corporation. The reasons for reopening the assessment u/s 147 were recorded on 15.03.2013 and thereafter the notice u/s 148 was issued in the name of assessee on 20.03.2013.

    LATE SHRI BHURA RAM VERSUS THE ITO WARD 7 (2), JAIPUR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20691 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80960&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. ITAT Jaipur · 26 Dec 2019
    In the case in hand, the fair market value of the asset shall be taken as the valuation adopted by the stamp duty authority as provided u/s 50C of the Act being full value consideration and therefore, for the purpose of computing the capital gains the said amount of ₹ 1,08,25,150/- would be deemed to be full value consideration which is the actual sale consideration. Therefore, there will be no change in the capital gains computed and declared by the assessee even after applying the provisions of section 45(2) of the Act.

    SHRI SUBHASH CHAND KHANDELWAL VERSUS THE PR. CIT ALWAR

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20690 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80962&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Ahmedabad · 26 Dec 2019
    Genuineness of the payment of the wages to the temporary staff cannot be suspected as it was subject to professional tax and Provident fund. Once the genuineness of the expenses is established, then in our considered view the AO cannot occupy the armchair of the assessee and direct it to make the payment of wages at particular rate. As such it was the wisdom of the assessee for making the payment of the wages at the particular rate which cannot be questioned by the AO.

    M/S. RADIANT HITECH ENGG. PVT. LTD. VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 BARODA

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20689 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80964&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Delhi · 26 Dec 2019
    The assessee was not required to deduct TDS as the payment of EDC was not made out of any statutory and contractual liability to HUDA with whom the assessee has no privity of contract. Secondly, the assessee has reasonable cause for non-deduction of tax at source by the assessee company. Thirdly it is not the case of the Revenue authorities that the assessee has intentionally avoided the deduction of TDS by bringing on record contumacious conduct of the assessee.

    M/S. SANTUR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ACIT, RANGE 77, NEW DELHI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20688 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80965&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Delhi · 26 Dec 2019
    The date of search and seizure operation is 20.11.2009, it can be safely concluded that since no notice was issued and served upon the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act, assessment is complete. In our considered opinion, the profit and loss account and balance sheet of the assessee company, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be considered as incriminating material.

    M/S HBN INSURANCE AGENCIES VERSUS THE A.C.I.T CENTRAL CIRCLE - 4 NEW DELHI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20687 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80969&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Delhi · 26 Dec 2019
    Partnership deed dated 01.05.2008 at clause 8 contains provision for interest on capital @ 12% per annum and clause 17 provides for remuneration to whole time working partners and method of computation of remuneration is also provided. Vide supplementary deed dated 01.04.2010, manner of paying remuneration to whole time working partners have been revised.

    M/S MAYASHEEL CONSTRUCTION C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV VERSUS THE DY. C.I.T CIRCLE - 1 GHAZIABAD

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20686 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=80970&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  17. ITAT Chennai · 24 Dec 2019
    The decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Zylog is a recent judgment pronounced on 23.04.2019 and we are bound by decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court affirming ratio of decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Synopsis which was decided in favour of Revenue.

    The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/s.Saipem India Projects Pvt. Ltd.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20685 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  18. ITAT Delhi · 24 Dec 2019
    Sec. 28(iv) can only be invoked in case of any income arising from business or profession.

    Simpson Unitech Wireless (P) Ltd and Shri Sanjay Chandra Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20684 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 28(iv)

  19. Supreme Court · 24 Dec 2019
    If at this stage the inordinate delay is condoned unmindful of the lackadaisical manner in which the appellant has proceeded in the matter, it would also be contrary to public interest.

    University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20683 (SC)

  20. Supreme Court · 23 Dec 2019
    Condonation of delay of 916 days: While a liberal approach is to be taken in the matter of condonation of delay & the consideration does not depend on the status of the party, even so the condonation of long delay should not be automatic since the accrued right or adverse consequence to the opposite party is also to be kept in perspective. While considering condonation of delay, routine explanation is not enough but it should be in the nature of indicating “sufficient cause” to justify the delay which will depend on the backdrop of each case and will have to be weighed carefully by the Courts based on the fact situation (Mst Katiji 1987(2) SCC 107 distinguished)

    University of Delhi vs. UOI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20682 (SC)

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.