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

15,882 rulings

  1. Kerala High Court · 29 Dec 2018
    Entire law on whether the situs of sale of intangible property like trademarks & patents is the place where the contract is entered into or where the intangible is registered or where the owner is resident explained in the context of s. 9(1)(i) of Income-tax Act & the law on sales-tax

    Lal Products vs. Intelligence Officer

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16371 (HC-KERALA)

  2. ITAT Ahmedabad · 29 Dec 2018
    Guidelines specified to ensure expeditious hearing of cases referred to Special Benches and Third Members: Inordinate delay in fixation of hearing of Special Bench & Third Member cases is inappropriate and contrary to the scheme of the Act. It also reduces the efficacy and utility of the mechanism to deal with important matters

    Doshi Accounting Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16370 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  3. Bombay High Court · 29 Dec 2018
    S. 22 ALV: If the assessee is a builder but is not engaged in the business of letting of property, the unsold flats held as stock in trade is assessable to tax under the head 'income from house property' (Sambhu Investment 263 ITR 143 (SC), Chennai Properties 373 ITR 673(SC), Rayala Corp 386 ITR 500 (SC) referred/ distinguished)

    CIT vs. Gundecha Builders (Bombay High Court)

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16369 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 22

  4. ITAT Rajkot · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - No TDS u/s 194-I on demurrage charges paid for the delay of loading/unloading of the goods.

    Jindal Saw Limited Vs ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16364 (ITAT-RAJKOT) · Section 194-I

  5. ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - ITAT SB issued guidelines with a view to ensure the expeditious hearing of cases referred to Special Benches and Third Members.

    Doshi Accounting Services Pvt Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16363 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  6. ITAT Indore · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - Fees levied u/s 234E for delay in filing TDS statements for period prior to June 1, 2015 deleted.

    Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Ltd Vs DCIT ( Centralized processing Cell-TDS )

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16362 (ITAT-INDORE) · Section 234E

  7. ITAT Chennai · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - Exemption u/s 54F available to the assessee where the property was jointly held by him with his brother.

    Shri Immnuel Charles Vs Income Tax officer

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16361 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 54F

  8. ITAT Ahmedabad · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - There was no cogent material to support assessee’s plea that 'cash deposits' were made out of old savings. Addition sustained.

    Rakeshkumar P. Patel Vs DCIT (International Taxation)-1

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16360 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  9. ITAT Jaipur · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - No TDS U/s 194H on commission to retailers/dealers by distributors on behalf of Principal.

    Shri Rahul Singhal Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16359 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 40(a)(ia)

  10. ITAT Chennai · 28 Dec 2018
    ITAT - Advertisement expenses incurred for exhibiting film cannot be allowed in the hands of the director u/s 37(1).

    Shri M. Perarasu Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16358 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 37(1)

  11. Bombay High Court · 26 Dec 2018
    Severe strictures issued against DCIT for illegal tax recovery. DCIT directed to pay costs of Rs. 1.50 lakh from salary to the assessee. Dept directed to make entry of lapse & error in the Annual Confidential Report of the AO. Strictures also passed against DCIT for overreaching authority & power by not allowing Dept's Counsel to argue. Such conduct of DCIT does not enhance the image and reputation of Dept

    Nu-Tech Corporate Services Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court)

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16357 (HC-BOMBAY)

  12. Kerala High Court · 24 Dec 2018
    S. 220(6) Stay of demand: If the assessee has exercised on time its statutory remedy of filing an appeal and also filed a stay petition, procedural fairness demands that the authorities may wait, before taking further steps, until the appellate authority decides on the stay petition

    Kerala State Co-op Agricultural And Rural Development Bank Ltd vs. ITO (Kerala High Court)

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16338 (HC-KERALA) · Section 220(6)

  13. Bombay High Court · 24 Dec 2018
    S. 50C Capital Gains: The valuation of the stamp authority cannot be adopted for the purpose of collecting capital gain tax in the hands of the assessee if there is a long gap between the date of execution of the MOU and the execution of a formal development agreement

    PCIT vs. The Executor of Estate of Late Smt. Manjula A. Shah (Bombay High Court)

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16337 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 50C

  14. Kerala High Court · 24 Dec 2018
    HC - CBDT to consider applications u/s 119(2)(a)/(b) by assessees in Kerala towards claim of waiver of interest, penalty etc..

    Alwaye Chartered Accountants Association Vs UNION OF INDIA

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16330 (HC-KERALA) · Section 119

  15. Bombay High Court · 24 Dec 2018
    HC - Even where return was accepted u/s. 143(1), if the issue is legally concluded, there would be no point in allowing the AO to resort to full fledged reassessment.

    Amarjeet Thapar Vs Income Tax Officer

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16329 (HC-BOMBAY)

  16. ITAT Ahmedabad · 24 Dec 2018
    ITAT - Notice for reassessment was served upon the part time accountant, who was not authorized to receive any document on behalf of the assessees - Quashes re-assessment.

    Smt. Sarojben Manubhai Shah Vs The ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16328 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)

  17. Bombay High Court · 22 Dec 2018
    S. 147 Reopening: If the assessee's son contends in his assessment that certain investments belong to the assessee, that gives "reason to believe" to the AO to reopen the assessment. The subjective satisfaction of the AO has to seen and whether that satisfaction suffers from any perversity (Maniben Valji Shah 283 ITR 354 (Bom) distinguished)

    S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16321 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 147

  18. ITAT Delhi · 22 Dec 2018
    Bogus Purchases: The fact that the vendors are not available at the given address is not sufficient to treat the purchases as bogus if the assessee has discharged primary onus and substantiated the purchases through documentary evidence and payment is made through banking channels. None of these documents have been proved to be false or untrue and thus the initial burden cast on the assessee was duly discharged

    ACIT vs. Karam Chand Rubber Industries

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16320 (ITAT-DELHI)

  19. Gujarat High Court · 20 Dec 2018
    S. 147 Reopening of s. 143(1) assessment: Law on whether reopening to assess alleged Bogus Capital gains from penny stocks is permissible explained in the context of Rajesh Jhaveri 291 ITR 500 (SC) & Zuari Estate 373 ITR 661 (SC)

    Purviben Snehalbhai Panchhigar vs. ACIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16305 (HC-GUJARAT) · Sections 147, 143(1)

  20. Supreme Court · 20 Dec 2018
    S. 260A Condonation of delay of 1662 days: The High Court should not take a technical approach and refuse to condone the delay when appeals for earlier years with identical issues are already pending before it

    Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT

    (2018) TaxCorp(LJ) 16304 (SC) · Section 260A

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.