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. ITAT Bangalore · 24 Jun 2019
    Since Tribunal is the creation of statute/ Constitution, therefore it has the duty to examine the facts and apply correct law without being influenced by threat of contempt posed by both sides.

    Wipro Limited vs. Addl. CIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19511 (ITAT-BANGALORE)

  2. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Jun 2019
    Gem grading services provided by GIA India Lab to Indian affiliate will not be regarded as JV-arrangement. Rejects the constitutional plea of PE.

    Gemological Institute of America, Inc Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19510 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  3. ITAT Kolkata · 24 Jun 2019
    For applying provision u/s 56(2)(viib) receipt of share-application money, not share-allotment is relevant.

    M/s. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt.Ltd., Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19509 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  4. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Jun 2019
    Allowed Essar Teleholdings' appeal, holding sale of CCDs to related concern which resulted in a STCL of Rs 69.36 crores could not be construed as a colorable device and the loss was a genuine loss.

    M/s. Essar Teleholdings Limited Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19508 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  5. Supreme Court · 22 Jun 2019
    Entire law explained on (i) whether a litigant is bound by concessions of fact and law made by his Counsel/ Authorized representative during the hearing, (ii) tests to find out whether contract labourers are direct employees or not, (iii) meaning of "control and supervision", (iv) meaning of "master-servant" relationship & (v) when the findings in a judgement can be said to be "perverse" and such that no reasonable person could possibly arrive at

    Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd vs. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19501 (SC)

  6. ITAT Delhi · 22 Jun 2019
    S. 68 Bogus Capital Gains from Penny Stocks: The allegation that the Co is a penny stock co whose share price has been artificially rigged by promoters/brokers/operators to create non-genuine LTCG is not sufficient. The AO has failed to bring on record any evidence to prove that the transactions carried out by the assessee were not genuine or that the documents were not authentic. No specific enquiry or investigation was conducted in the case of the assessee and/or his broker either by the INV Wing or by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. The penny stock was also not subject to any action from SEBI (Udit Kalra 176 DTR 249 (Del) distinguished, Fair Invest Ltd 357 ITR 146 (Del) followed)

    Deepak Nagar vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19500 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 68

  7. Bombay High Court · 20 Jun 2019
    S. 32(1)(ii) Depreciation on Intangible asset: Rights acquired under a non-compete agreement gives enduring benefit & protects the assessee's business against competition. The expression "or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature" used in Explanation 3 to sub-section 32(1)(ii) is wide enough to include non-compete rights (Ferromatice Milacron India 99 TM.com 154 (Guj) followed)

    PCIT vs. Piramal Glass Limited

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19499 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 32(1)(ii)

  8. ITAT Delhi · 19 Jun 2019
    S. 56(2)(vii)(c): The assessee's purchase of shares of NDTV Ltd at Rs 4 per share from RRPR Holdings Pvt Ltd when the market price of the share was Rs 140 is a benefit taxable u/s 56 (2)( vii). The argument that as it is a transaction between closely related parties, there is no motive of tax evasion & s. 56 (2) does not apply is not acceptable. The assessee has failed to explain by credible evidence any reason of buying shares of the company at Rs. 4 per share when the quoted price was Rs. 140 & so the assessee cannot say that there was no motive of tax evasion. Even otherwise, s. 56 (2) deems such differences/receipts as income

    Radhika Roy / Prannoy Roy vs. DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19498 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 56(2)

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 19 Jun 2019
    Bogus F&O Loss: Unusual & sudden spurt in client code modifications undertaken by brokers was with an intention to evade taxes. In large number of client code modifications, there are no similarity between wrong code and correct code and secondly there are repetitive client code modifications. Thus, client code modifications are tainted with collusive action and manipulations & shall go out of the protection granted by the circulars of NSE/SEBI (Rakesh Gupta 405 ITR 213 (P&H) & Ninja Securities followed)

    Time Media & Entertainment LLP vs. ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19497 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 19 Jun 2019
    Bogus Purchases: The CIT(A) is not justified in enhancing the assessment to disallow 100% of the bogus purchases. The only addition which can be made is to account for profit element embedded in the purchase transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases (PCIT vs. Mohommad Haji Adam (Bom HC) followed

    V.R.Enterprises vs. ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19496 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 143(1)

  11. ITAT Amritsar · 21 Jun 2019
    ITAT - Since playschool is not an integral part of the term 'education', as such registration u/s 12AA is denied to assessee.

    Green Educational Society Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19489 (ITAT-AMRITSAR) · Section 12AA

  12. ITAT Jaipur · 21 Jun 2019
    Depreciation on Assets received by the assessee via transfer will be allowed, even though asset is not physically verifiable.

    Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19488 (ITAT-JAIPUR)

  13. ITAT Chennai · 21 Jun 2019
    Religious trust is is eligible for Sec 11 exemption even though it had filed its tax return belatedly.

    Sri Kanyaka Parameswari Devasthanam & Charities Vs The Income Tax Officer

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19487 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 11

  14. ITAT Jaipur · 21 Jun 2019
    When property is beneficially owned by the company, capital-gains is not taxable in the hands of director.

    Sanjay Jindal Vs ACIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19486 (ITAT-JAIPUR)

  15. ITAT Kolkata · 21 Jun 2019
    As per Rule 11UA(2), deduction of revaluation reserve is not required while calculating FMV of shares .

    Jupiter International Vs DCIT

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19485 (ITAT-KOLKATA)

  16. ITAT Delhi · 21 Jun 2019
    If one of the prescribed methods has been adopted by the assessee, then AO has to accept the same and in case he is not satisfied, then there is no express provision under the Act or rules, where AO can adopt his own valuation in DCF method or get it valued by some different Valuer.

    Cinestaan Entertainment P. Ltd Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19484 (ITAT-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Chennai · 21 Jun 2019
    Dismissing the appeal in the guise of disposing of the same in a fast manner ('low-tax' appeal) would amount to burial of justice.

    Faridha Begum Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19483 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  18. ITAT Delhi · 20 Jun 2019
    ITAT - SEZ deduction claim u/s. 80IAB allowed however interest u/s. 14A disallowed.

    DLF Limited Vs The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19476 (ITAT-DELHI) · Section 80IAB

  19. Madras High Court · 20 Jun 2019
    HC - The statutory condition imposed for availment of the extended period of limitation has not been satisfied in the present case and as such, the proceedings for re-assessment for AY 2011-12 are barred by limitation.

    Asianet Star Communications Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19475 (HC-MADRAS)

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 19 Jun 2019
    ITAT - Upheld addition as fictitious loss being inflicted by manipulative client code modification by treating F&O loss as bogus loss.

    Time Media & Entertainment LLP Vs ITO

    (2019) TaxCorp(LJ) 19474 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 131(1A)

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.