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. Gujarat High Court · 02 Jul 2019
    This circular thus lays down 15% of the disputed demand to be deposited for stay, by way of a general condition. The circular does not prohibit or envisage that there can be no deviation from this standard formula.

    SHRI DALPATSINH UKABHAI VASAVA VERSUS THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 2

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19564 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=79003&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Jul 2019
    Even if the property is not transferred, then there is a right created by the “Land Development Control Rules, 1991” [DCR] attached with the land embedded in it.

    State Bank of India Staff Vaibhav Co-op Hsg. Ltd Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19563 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  3. Madras High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    The assessee was put in possession of the property in 1992 and was enjoying the property as that of an absolute owner except to fulfill the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale deed.

    SOUTH INDIA MINERALS CORPORATION VERSUS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE XIV, CHENNAI.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19562 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78988&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  4. Madras High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    If a debt had become irrecoverable the same could be written off and deducted from the profit of the business. A debt, the recovery of which was doubtful could not be termed to be an ascertained liability as mentioned u/s 115J of the Act and could not be excluded from the book profits.

    M/S. EID PARRY (INDIA) LIMITED VERSUS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE - II (1) , CHENNAI, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE - I, CHENNAI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19561 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78990&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Madras High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    The agreement for sale should not be read in isolation, but should be read in conjoint with the power of attorney which in sum and substance is irrevocable.

    SHRI C. SHRINIVASAN VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 3 (2), CHENNAI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19560 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78991&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  6. Bombay High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    Action of respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained. Section 179 of the Act undoubtedly authorizes the Department to recover unpaid tax dues of a private company from its directors, however, this is subject to certain legal requirements contained in the said provision.

    VANRAJ V. SHAH VERSUS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 10 (1) (1) & ANR.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19559 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78992&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  7. Bombay High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    The order passed by the Assessing Officer is palpably bad in law and exceeds its jurisdiction, relegating a litigant to appeal remedy will be wholly futile and in facts of the present case also lead to undue hardship.

    TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 (3) (2), MUMBAI AND ORS.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19558 (HC-BOMBAY) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78993&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  8. Gujarat High Court · 01 Jul 2019
    Court does not find the impugned provision to be in any manner unconstitutional, hence, the question of reading it down to save its constitutional validity does not arise. Besides, the provisions of clause (iii) of the Explanation to section 115JB are clear and ambiguous and it is not possible to take two views as to the meaning of the statutory language. Hence, the request to read down the provision also does not merit acceptance.

    CAIRN INDIA HOLDING LTD. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTL TAXN) -1

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19557 (HC-GUJARAT) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78996&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  9. ITAT Pune · 29 Jun 2019
    Since no powers u/s. 92CA have been bestowed on TPO to decide the situs of control and management of affairs. Therefore, it is the AO who has to come to a finding in this regard.

    Sava Healthcare Ltd (earlier known as Anagha Pharma Pvt Ltd) vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19556 (ITAT-PUNE)

  10. Madras High Court · 29 Jun 2019
    Dismisses writ petition citing appeal remedy, orders status quo on Cognizant's fixed deposits.

    Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt Ltd vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19555 (HC-MADRAS)

  11. Delhi High Court · 28 Jun 2019
    S. 254: President/ Sr. VP of the ITAT should take appropriate steps and expedite hearing in old appeals. A tabular statement indicating the age of the old appeals as well as an action plan of the ITAT with respect to the likely time for their disposal, having regard to the priorities that ITAT may set in this regard, shall also be filed in court

    Nokia Solutions And Networks Italia Spa vs. DDIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19554 (HC-DELHI) · Section 254

  12. ITAT Delhi · 29 Jun 2019
    Income offered by the assessee through its joint declaration was neither represented by any assets found in the course of search nor represented by any entry made in the books of accounts or other documents or transactions found in the course of search and income voluntarily offered by the assessee did not come within the ambit and scope of the expression ‘undisclosed income’ as defined for the purposes of Section 271AAB.

    CINESTAAN ENTERTAINMENT P. LTD. VERSUS ITO, WARD-6 (2), NEW DELHI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19553 (ITAT-DELHI) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76086&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Pune · 29 Jun 2019
    ITAT - Fees for Management services - Even if, we proceed with the assumption that the mark up of 5% is not at ALP, which should be as low as 1% or even less than that, still the difference arising on account of such mark-up going even up to 0% in a comparable uncontrolled situation, would be within +/-5% range, not requiring any transfer pricing adjustment.

    INA BEARINGS INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS DCIT, CIRCLE-11, PUNE AND (VICE-VERSA)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19552 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76088&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Pune · 29 Jun 2019
    Assessee owns three flats and that since the assessee was the owner of more than one residential house as on the date of transfer of land, he was not eligible for deduction u/s 54F of the Act.

    JAGADISH PRABHAKAR DESHPANDE VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PUNE.

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19551 (ITAT-PUNE) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76089&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. ITAT Ahmedabad · 29 Jun 2019
    The ld.CIT(A) reproduced grounds of appeal on page no.1 and 2, and thereafter reproduced submissions of the assessee upto page no.44. In other words, he has reproduced 40 pages of written submission given by the assessee, and thereafter concluded the finding in five-six lines. This order has been followed blindly in other years without any application of mind. Thus, it is a just non-speaking order at the end of the ld.CIT(A).

    ATUL LIMITED VERSUS DCIT (OSD) , RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD. AND ACIT (OSD), RANGE-1 AHMEDABAD. VERSUS ATUL LIMITED

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19550 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=76091&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. Madras High Court · 29 Jun 2019
    There had been no deliberate concealment nor there had been deliberate non disclosure and that the assessee disclosed the amount, which, according to the Department, should have been shown as a perquisite because the employer had treated it as a perquisite and deducted tax at source. Though the assessee offered an explanation, it was not found to be acceptable by the AO.

    THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI-IX VERSUS SHRI. RAMESWARA REDDY KUMMATHI

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19549 (HC-MADRAS) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78972&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  17. Kerala High Court · 28 Jun 2019
    By crediting the enhanced value of the land, which belonged to the firm, to the current account of the partners of the firm and by treating it as loan from the partners in the accounts of the company, there was violation of the provisions contained in clauses (a) and (c) of the proviso to Section 47(xiii). Therefore, the aforesaid transaction amounts to transfer of a capital asset within the purview of Section 45 and the profits or gains obtained by the transfer of the asset by the firm to the company has to be treated as capital gains.

    K.T.C. AUTOMOBILES VERSUS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2 (1) , CALICUT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19548 (HC-KERALA) · https://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=78973&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  18. ITAT Chennai · 28 Jun 2019
    Since ATM machines were nothing but computers as they dealt with the functions of decoding the information, processing the same and giving the output, therefore allows assessee's 60% depreciation claim on ATM machines.

    Financial Software and Systems Private Limited Vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19547 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  19. ITAT Kolkata · 28 Jun 2019
    Merely because the transactions had taken place with the related parties, the same cannot be construed as a colorable device.

    Apeejay Surrendra Corporate Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19546 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  20. ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Jun 2019
    Deletes addition on account of reversal of unsecured loan u/s. 41(1) in absence of proof that the assessee has been allowed any deduction in respect of waiver of such liability in the past.

    Medical Technologies Limited Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19545 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · Section 41(1)

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.