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 Delhi · 07 Dec 2019
    S. 147 Reopening of Bogus share capital/ premium: If the PCIT, while granting approval for issue of notice u/s. 148, has only mentioned “YES”, it establishes that the approving authority has given approval to the reopening of assessment in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. On this count the reassessment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and needs to be quashed (All imp judgements referred)

    Blue Chip Developers (P) Ltd vs. ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20580 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 147

  2. Delhi High Court · 06 Dec 2019
    The questions of law urged by the appellant, do not arise for consideration.

    ROLLS-ROYCE PLC Vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20579 (HC-DELHI)

  3. Madras High Court · 06 Dec 2019
    The Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned notices.

    Mohan Ravi Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20578 (HC-MADRAS)

  4. Chhattisgarh High Court · 06 Dec 2019
    The whole Act of 1988 as it stood today inclusive of the amended provisions brought into force from 01.11.2016 onwards would apply irrespective of the period of purchase of the alleged Benami property.

    Tulsiram and Manki Bai Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20577 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)

  5. Delhi High Court · 06 Dec 2019
    Conducting of samagams and spiritual discourses are part of religious activities and religious activity in the context of the Hindu religion need not be confined to the activities incidental to a place of worship only, like a temple.

    Bhagwan Shree Laxmi Narain Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20576 (HC-DELHI) · Section 11

  6. Karnataka High Court · 02 Dec 2019
    Any order passed by TPO subsequent to the reference made by AO shall not be given effect to, until a decision is taken by AO.

    Essilor India Private Ltd Vs The ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20575 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  7. ITAT Rajkot · 06 Dec 2019
    Without first issuing a draft assessment order as is required u/s. 144C, the AO cannot pass a final order u/s. 172(4), and therefore, the assessment made in the case of the assessee is bad in law.

    ISS Shipping India Pvt. Ltd Vs The Dy. CIT, (International Taxation)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20574 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · Sections 144C, 172(4)

  8. ITAT Kolkata · 06 Dec 2019
    The amount in issue, which has been derived outside India and only credited in a bank account in India, does not attract sec. 5(2)(a) in case of a non-resident.

    Dr. Kamal Kar Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20573 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · Section 5(2)(a)

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 06 Dec 2019
    The words 'actually allowed' under Explanation (2) only mean depreciation, which has been given effect to, in the computation of income of the amalgamating companies and will not include unabsorbed depreciation.

    ACIT Vs M /s. JSW Steel Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20572 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  10. ITAT Chennai · 05 Dec 2019
    PCIT cannot exercise the power of revision to look into any other issue which the AO himself could not look.

    Smt. Padmavathi Vs The ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20571 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 263

  11. ITAT Chennai · 06 Dec 2019
    The taxing authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers and in doing so they must act in a fair and not a partisan manner.

    Kingston Educational Trust Vs The DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20570 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 143(1)

  12. Supreme Court · 04 Dec 2019
    We uphold the conclusion reached by the High Court that the amount received in the hands of appellant-assessee cannot be treated as capital receipt. Thus, the order of the Assessing Officer is affirmed. Hence, no interference is warranted in this appeal.

    H.S.RAMCHANDRA RAO Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20563 (SC)

  13. ITAT Bangalore · 04 Dec 2019
    Since the assessee had failed to show that it had incurred any expenditure in earning interest income, the claim of the assessee cannot be accepted.

    The Malleshwaram Association Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20562 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Dec 2019
    There is no substance in the claim of the assessee that as per the pre-amended provision of Sec.43CA, in case the difference between the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority and the actual sale consideration was less than 15%, then the same was to be ignored and no addition on the said count was called for in the hands of the assessee.

    Welfare Properties P. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20555 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 43CA

  15. Karnataka High Court · 03 Dec 2019
    Pendency of the assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to institution of a criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Section 276(1) or Section 277 of the Act.

    Sri D.K.Shivakumar Vs Deputy Director Income Tax (Inv)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20554 (HC-KARNATKATA)

  16. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Dec 2019
    Though the liabilities had ceased to exist as far as the assessee was concerned, the trade creditors had not waived their rights to receive it and the partners were now liable to pay such amount.

    M/s Dharamtar Motor Services Petroleum Product Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20547 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Sections 68, 41(1)

  17. Supreme Court · 02 Dec 2019
    The PCIT was right in concluding that neither of the Petitioners had made a full and true disclosure of all material facts.

    Ankush Jain Vs Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 4

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20546 (SC)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Nov 2019
    Static vs. Ambulatory interpretation of DTAAs: Entire law on whether the retrospective amendments to the definition of "royalty" in s. 9(1)(vi) of the Act can have bearing on the interpretation of the same term in the DTAAs explained with reference to the doctrine of "treaty override" and the Vienna Convention (Siemens AG 310 ITR 320 (Bom) explained)

    ACIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20545 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 9(1)(vi)

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Nov 2019
    Law on taxation under DTAAs of "transparent entities" & "representative assesseess" explained: When an assessee is a representative assessee of a tax transparent entity, it is the status of beneficiaries or constituents of tax transparent entities which is relevant for the purpose of determining treaty protection (Linklaters LLP 9 ITR (Trib) 217 (Mum) followed)

    ING Bewaar Maatschappij I BV vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20544 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  20. Bombay High Court · 30 Nov 2019
    Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not valid if (i) there is no record of satisfaction by the AO that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by the assessee or (ii) If the notice is issued in the printed form and the inapplicable portions are not struck off (Samson Perinchery 392 ITR 4 (Bom) & New Era Sova Mine [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] followed, Mak Data 358 ITR 593 (SC) distinguished).

    PCIT vs. Goa Coastal Resorts & Recreation Pvt. Ltd

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 20543 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)

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.