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

15,867 rulings

  1. Bombay High Court · 25 Jul 2019
    Quashed assessee's self-proclamation for sale of immovable property attached under Schedule II Part III, opining it to be barred by limitation under Rule 68 of schedule II.

    Sapana Charudatt Ranadive Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19745 (HC-BOMBAY)

  2. ITAT Indore · 26 Jul 2019
    The law is well settled where the A.O. makes best judgement by estimating the profit. He is required to make independent enquiries, if he is not satisfied with the profit declared by the assessee from the similarly situated assessee.

    RAMESH HARI PRASAD CHOUKSE VERSUS JCIT RANGE-2 INBDORE

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19744 (ITAT-INDORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76611&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Delhi · 26 Jul 2019
    The details of Short Term Capital Gains are exhibited elsewhere from which it can be seen that the assessee has purchased shares of six companies on various dates and have sold them on various dates.

    MAHESH CHAND GOYAL (HUF) VERSUS ACIT, CIRCLE-38 (1), NEW DELHI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19743 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76609&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  4. ITAT Delhi · 26 Jul 2019
    Admittedly, no defect has been pointed out by the AO in the books of account except doubting the valuation of closing stock. We find the VAT authorities have scrutinized the records and have accepted the purchase, sales and closing stock without any mistake.

    MAHASHAKTI ENGINEERING CO., C/O AKHILESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-21 (1), NEW DELHI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19742 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76606&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  5. ITAT Delhi · 26 Jul 2019
    Covenants inserted in the lease deed go to prove that the assessee is not having tenancy right rather he is having ownership of the land which can be mortgaged/sold by him and the property in question can be inherited by his legal heirs also.

    MANISH TRADERS VERSUS ITO, WARD 1 (4), GHAZIABAD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19741 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76604&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  6. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 26 Jul 2019
    the admission of substantial questions of law by the High Court leads credence to the bona fide of the assessee and therefore, the penalty is not exigible under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

    SYNDICATE BANK, NGV KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE, SYNDICATE BANK, NGV YELHANKA, BANGALORE, SYNDICATE BANK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), RANGE 3, BANGALORE.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19740 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76602&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 26 Jul 2019
    In the instant case the assessment was completed accepting the revised returns instead of making the assessment on the basis of the seized material and the evidences collected during the search.

    M/S SIDDHARTHA ACADEMY OF GENERAL & TECHNICAL EDUCATION VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19739 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76599&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Supreme Court · 25 Jul 2019
    The issuance of jurisdictional notice and the assessment order thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.

    Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19738 (SC)

  9. Supreme Court · 25 Jul 2019
    Once the action is held in accordance with law and especially in tax matters, the question of invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution does not arise.

    Prashanti Medical Services &Research Foundation Vs Union of India & Ors.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19737 (SC) · Section 35AC

  10. ITAT Delhi · 25 Jul 2019
    We are of the considered view that when undisputedly assessee has entered into transaction of derivatives after 01.04.2006 in a recognised stock exchange as per Circular No.2/2006 dated 25.01.2006, loss arising in F&O transaction has to be treated as business loss and not loss in speculative business.

    DCIT, CIRCLE 11 (1) , NEW DELHI. VERSUS M/S. FLORA AND FAUNA HOUSING AND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19735 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76570&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  11. ITAT Delhi · 25 Jul 2019
    Undisputedly, originally assessment in this case was framed u/s 143 (3) of the Act. It is also not in dispute that AO has initially issued a notice u/s 154/155 of the Act, available at pages 1 & 2 of the paper book, but when assessment record was perused in the open court, there is neither any order sheet nor final order, if any, passed consequent upon the notice issued u/s 154.

    M/S. CHAND INDUSTRY VERSUS ITO, WARD II (2), FARIDABAD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19734 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76571&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Madras High Court · 25 Jul 2019
    The embezzlement by one of the Directors or an employee of the business of the Assessee Company during the ordinary course of business can be a business loss of the Assessee irrespective of criminal prosecution of the accused director/employee of the Company.

    PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VERSUS M/S. SARAVANA SELVARATHNAM TRADING & MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD., CHENNAI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19733 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79318&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Madras High Court · 25 Jul 2019
    We find some force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Revenue. Since the Appellant died and his legal representatives are not available to argue the present Appeal or to engage a Counsel to appear in the matter, we dismiss the present Appeal as having abated with a liberty to the legal representatives to revive the said Appeal with proper Application in case, they consider it appropriate.

    K.Y. GAITONDE VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CITY CIRCLE VII (1) CHENNAI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19732 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79319&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Madras High Court · 25 Jul 2019
    In the instant case, we find that on objections being filed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disposed of the objections and passed an order on 10.11.2017. Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the CIT(A) ought to have considered the validity of the reopening and not rejected the appeal on the ground that the authorized representative of the assessee participated in response to the notice issued u/s 148.

    SMT. NEETAA SUNEEL SHAH VERSUS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19731 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79320&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  15. Delhi High Court · 25 Jul 2019
    Even for the purposes of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 275(1)(a) the limitation begins to run from the date of the order of the ITAT was served upon the CIT (Judicial).

    PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 VERSUS INDIAN SUGAR EXIM CORPORATION LTD.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19730 (HC-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79323&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Bangalore · 24 Jul 2019
    Entries in the books of accounts are not conclusive with regard to liability to tax when it is shown that the taxable event had in fact not taken place or was given up or abandoned.

    Avestagenome Project International Pvt. Ltd Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19729 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  17. Supreme Court · 24 Jul 2019
    HC ought not to have interfered with ITAT's order as no substantial question of law arose therefrom. SC thus allowed assessee's appeal and set aside the HC order and reinstated ITAT order.

    PURSHOTTAM KHATRI Vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19728 (SC)

  18. Supreme Court · 24 Jul 2019
    Once arm's length principle has been satisfied, there can be no further profit attributable to a person even if it has a PE in India.

    Honda Motors Co. Ltd Vs ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19727 (SC)

  19. ITAT Bangalore · 24 Jul 2019
    Evidently the show cause notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.2008 is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed.

    SHRI RAJAN R SRINIVASAN VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET-AX, CIRCLE 1 (2) (1), BENGALURU.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19726 (ITAT-BANGALORE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76552&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  20. Madras High Court · 24 Jul 2019
    In our considered view, there are only two methods of dealing such a situation. Firstly, if the decision is per incurium, a finding to the said effect has to be given. Secondly, the Court or the Tribunal can refuse to follow the decision by distinguishing it on the factual matrix.

    SARVODAYA MUTUAL BENEFIT TRUST, THELLAR VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19725 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79308&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.