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

15,928 rulings

  1. ITAT Mumbai · 09 Feb 2017
    ITAT - Making false claim made towards interest deduction while computing income from house property is not a fit case for levy of 300% penalty, but to levy minimum penalty i.e. 100% u/s 271(1)(c).

    Shri Sujata Hemlal Bakhre Versus ITO WD 8 (3) (1), Mumbai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12095 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54428&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Bombay High Court · 09 Feb 2017
    HC - When executives are employed and the infrastructure is ready to commence business, it can be said that the business has been set up.

    The Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai Versus M/s. Axis Pvt. Equity Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12093 (HC-BOMBAY) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68391&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Chennai · 06 Feb 2017
    Transfer Pricing - Meaning of “Associated Enterprises”: The fact that an enterprise can “influence prices and other conditions relating to sale” does not make it an “associated enterprise” of the assessee if it does not participate in the (a) capital, (b) management, or (c) control of the assessee and thus does not fulfil the basic rule u/s 92A(1). S. 92A(2)(i) has to be read with s. 92(A)(1). Even if the conditions of s. 92A(2)(i) are fulfilled, these enterprise cannot be treated as ‘associated enterprise’ if the requirements of s. 92A(1) are not fulfilled

    Orchid Pharma Limited vs. DCIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12090 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · Section 92A(1)

  4. Bombay High Court · 06 Feb 2017
    S. 68: Even if the premium at which the shares are issued defies commercial prudence, the receipt cannot be assessed as "unexplained credit" if the identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction and capacity of the subscriber are not disputed. Interest earned on short-term fixed deposits is assessable as "profits and gains of business" and not as "income from other sources"

    CIT vs. Green Infra Limited

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12089 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 68

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 08 Feb 2017
    S. 69C Bogus Purchases: Purchases cannot be treated as bogus merely on the basis of the statements and affidavits filed by the alleged vendors before the sales-tax department. The said statements cannot be relied upon without cross-examination of the parties. The fact that the parties did not respond to the s. 133(6) notices is not relevant if the assessee filed copies of purchase invoices, extracts of stock ledger showing entry/exit of materials, copies of bank statements to evidence that payments for these purchases were made through normal banking channels, etc to establish genuineness of the aforesaid purchases

    ACIT vs. Mahesh K. Shah

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12088 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C

  6. Bombay High Court · 06 Feb 2017
    Bogus purchases: A statement by the alleged vendor that the transactions with the assessee are only accommodation entries and that there are no sales or purchases cannot be relied upon by the AO unless the assessee is given the opportunity to cross-examine the vendor

    CIT vs. Ashish International

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12087 (HC-BOMBAY)

  7. Bombay High Court · 03 Feb 2017
    S. 271(1)(c): Failure by the AO to specify in the s. 274 notice whether the penalty is being initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or for 'concealment of income' is fatal. It reflects non-application of mind and renders the levy of penalty invalid (Manjunatha Cotton 359 ITR 565 (Kar) followed)

    CIT vs. Samson Perinchery

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12079 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 271(1)(c)

  8. Bombay High Court · 03 Feb 2017
    S. 28/29: There is a distiction between "setting up of business" and "commencement of business". All expenditure after "setting up" is deductible business expenditure even if the business has not commenced. A business is "set up" when steps are taken to recruit employees and take premises etc

    CIT vs. Axis Pvt. Equity Ltd

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12078 (HC-BOMBAY) · Sections 28, 29

  9. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Feb 2017
    S. 234C: Though levy of interest for deferment of advance-tax is mandatory and cause & justification for the deferment are irrelevant, the same is not leviable if the income was not predictable and the assessee could not have anticipated its receipt e.g. the receipt of a gift

    Kumari Kumar Advani vs. ACIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12077 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 234C

  10. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Feb 2017
    ITAT - Assessee had incurred expenditure of repair and renovations only to preserve and maintain the existing asset and that the expenditure was not of a nature which brought into being a new asset or created a new advantage of an enduring nature. The expenditure is revenue in nature.

    M/s Sarang and Associates Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-36, Mumbai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12041 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54343&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Feb 2017
    ITAT - In case the nature of business, which indicates that it cannot be done solely by crossed cheque or bank draft and the payment is proven from bills and cash memos, exceptional circumstances could be inferred u/s.40A(3).

    M/s Raj Wines, C/o P.N. Subramanian & Co. Versus ITO, Ward-4 (3), Thane

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12040 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54346&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. ITAT Mumbai · 02 Feb 2017
    ITAT - To hold the transactions as mere accommodation entries and not real purchases is quite different from saying that the sources of expenditure for the purchases have not been explained in the context of Sec. 69C. No addition.

    ITO, Ward-19 (2) (2), Mumbai Versus Shri Karsan Nandu and Vice-Versa

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12039 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54337&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  13. Allahabad High Court · 02 Feb 2017
    HC - Assessment u/s 144 without issuing notice was patently illegal.

    M/s Wishwa Mittar Bajaj & Sons Versus Income Tax Officer -IV (4) Lucknow

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12038 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68360&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  14. Delhi High Court · 31 Jan 2017
    S. 68 Bogus capital gains: A transaction cannot be treated as fraudulent if the assessee has furnished documentary proof and proved the identity of the purchasers and no discrepancy is found. The AO has to exercise his powers u/s 131 & 133(6) to verify the genuineness of the claim and cannot proceed on surmises

    Pr. CIT. vs. Jatin Investment Pvt. Ltd.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12037 (HC-DELHI) · Section. 68

  15. ITAT Delhi · 31 Jan 2017
    Permanent Establishment: Entire law explained on whether the deputation of personnel by a foreign company to assist the Indian subsidiaries in negotiations, marketing etc leads to a “fixed place PE” or a “Dependant Agent PE” under Article 5 of the DTAA and if so, the manner in which the profits of the foreign company are attributable to operations in India

    GE Energy Parts Inc vs. ADIT

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12036 (ITAT-DELHI)

  16. Delhi High Court · 31 Jan 2017
    HC - Profits earned by international airlines from providing technical services to other airlines is not taxable in India under DTAA.

    Lufthansa German Airlines Vs. Director Of Income Tax

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12035 (HC-DELHI)

  17. ITAT Delhi · 01 Feb 2017
    ITAT - The mere fact that written submissions were filed by the assessee, it cannot be so construed that the right to be heard was given up. Ex-parte assessment u/s 147 without rejection of objections raised by the assessee not valid.

    Bhupinder Singh Versus ITO, Ward-58 (2) (Old Ward-36 (1), New Delhi

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12034 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54328&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Feb 2017
    ITAT - AO levied the maximum penalty prescribed equal to 100% without recording any satisfaction u/s 221(1), CIT(A) was right in restricting penalty to 10% of the total tax payable.

    DCIT-17 (2), Mumbai Versus Prashant R. Samdani and Vice-Versa

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12033 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54329&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Feb 2017
    ITAT - Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of expenses of foreign Travel and inter city travel not justified as revenue has not rejected the explanation and merely levied the penalty on the basis that the expenses are for non-business purposes.

    Subhakam Stocks and Shares P. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 4 (2) (3), Mumbai

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12032 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54331&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  20. ITAT Mumbai · 01 Feb 2017
    ITAT - Business loss cannot be treated at par with the expenses / allowances and such business loss can be set off against any type of income (u/s 69) as section 71 do not debar from setting off such losses.

    ACIT Central Circle-13, Mumbai Versus M/s. Rahil Agencies

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 12031 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=54333&Category=ITAT&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.