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. Rajasthan High Court · 04 Jan 2017
    HC - Where an educational institution carries on the activity of education primarily for educating persons, the fact that it makes a surplus does not lead to the conclusion that it ceases to exist solely for educational purposes and becomes an institution for the purpose of making profit.

    Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar Versus Model Public School Society, Bhiwadi

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11797 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68137&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  2. Rajasthan High Court · 04 Jan 2017
    HC - Merely because commission agent has not appeared, sales commission cannot be disallowed.

    Harish Clays Versus ACIT, Circle, Jaipur & Anr.

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11796 (HC-RAJASTHAN) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68140&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. ITAT Pune · 04 Jan 2017
    ITAT - In cases where penalty proceedings have been initiated on a different footing and the CIT(A) reverses the same, there is change in opinion and basis for levy of penalty for concealment varies. There is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c).

    Shri Dilip D. Jain Versus ACIT, Central Circle-3, Nashik

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11795 (ITAT-PUNE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53882&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  4. ITAT Jaipur · 04 Jan 2017
    ITAT - The wife of the assessee could have included the value of construction for mortgage purposes and this alone does not mean that construction was carried out by the wife of the assessee out of her own funds so as to deny the assessee the benefit of exemption u/s 54F.

    Mahadev Balai Versus I.T.O., Ward 7 (2), Jaipur

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11794 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53770&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  5. Madras High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - Since entire sum related to transfer of business rights was not covered by exclusionary proviso to Sec 28(va), Rs. 1 cr toward non-compete covenant, taxable u/s 28(va), out of total consideration of Rs. 6 cr. received a pharma co. upon entering into Brand Acquisition, Consultancy and Non-compete agreements.

    CIT. Vs. Chemech Laboratories Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11793 (HC-MADRAS)

  6. P&H High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - Though taxes paid/ loss return filed by deductee will absolve deductor from liability to deduct TDS, but it will not absolve him from ‘automatic’ interest liability u/s 201(1A) which should be calculated from the date on which tax should have been deducted to the date on which payee filed its return.

    Punjab Infrastructure Dev. Board Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11792 (HC-P&H) · Section. 201(1A)

  7. Gujarat High Court · 02 Jan 2017
    HC - Receipt of non-interest bearing refundable security deposit by assessee-club is capital in nature and not taxable.

    Gulmohar Green Golf And Country Club Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax­2

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11791 (HC-GUJARAT)

  8. ITAT Chennai · 02 Jan 2017
    ITAT - AO to give assessee an opportunity to explain while making ‘unexplained cash credit’ addition u/s 68.

    Kalainagar TV P. Ltd. Vs. The DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11790 (ITAT-CHENNAI)

  9. Gujarat High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - Where AO of searched person had recorded that seized document was a copy of ledger of books of account of assessee-company evidencing certain payments, there was prima facie material to suggest that satisfaction under section 153C was recorded. Notice issued to assessee was valid.

    Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11789 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66533&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  10. Gujarat High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - Income was to be divided amongst individual beneficiaries and same was to be accumulated for a period of 19 years in their respective specific deferred family trust, therefore income did not accrue or arise to specific deferred family trusts of individual beneficiaries in relevant year.

    Minor Baku Dineshbhai Amin Oral Spe. Def. Family Trust v. Commissioner of Income-tax

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11788 (HC-GUJARAT) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68110&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  11. Karnataka High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - Assessee was having large number of immovable properties and had capacity to pay interest by sale or realisation from property, attachment of portion of property could not be said to be genuine hardship. Three conditions requisite for waiver of interest u/s 220(2A) not fulfilled, interest not to be waived.

    Mookambika Associates v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2 (1), Bengaluru

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11787 (HC-KARNATAKA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68109&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  12. Allahabad High Court · 03 Jan 2017
    HC - The assessee club had made investments in the mutual fund, it was not an investment with the member but with an outsider or a non-member, therefore, the principle of mutuality would not apply.

    Commissioner of Income Tax, Ghaziabad Versus M/s Noida Golf Course Socieity

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11786 (HC-ALLAHABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=68102&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  13. ITAT Visakhapatnam · 03 Jan 2017
    ITAT - No additions towards VAT component of unaccounted sales as the net profit has been estimated on total turnover.

    The ITO, Ward-1 (2), Visakhapatnam Versus S. Siva Rama Reddy and Vica-Versa

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11785 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53870&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  14. ITAT Mumbai · 03 Jan 2017
    ITAT - If the assessee disputes the value as per stamp valuation authority to be substituted in place of sales consideration for the purpose of calculation of capital gain , then the AO should refer the capital asset to valuation Officer to determine the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital asset u/s 50C(2) of the Act.

    Dilip V Mohindra Versus Income Tax Officer 19 (1) (3), Mumbai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11784 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=53876&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  15. P&H High Court · 29 Dec 2016
    S. 2(15)/11: Impact of the amendment to the definition of "charitable purpose" in s. 2(15) by insertion of a proviso by the Finance Act, 2008 and whether it supersedes the verdicts in Loka Shikshana Trust 101 ITR 234 (SC), Surat Art Silk Cloth Mfrs. Association 121 ITR 1 (SC) etc explained

    The Tribune Trust vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11783 (HC-P&H) · Section2(15), 11

  16. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Dec 2016
    S. 14A/ Rule 8D disallowance applies also to dividends received from strategic investments in subsidiaries. S. 40A(2) disallowance is not applicable to co-operative societies. As per Circular No. 14 (XL-35) of 1955 dated 11.4.1955, the AO is obliged to assist the assessee and allow deduction even if not claimed

    DCIT vs. The Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11782 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 14A

  17. ITAT Mumbai · 30 Dec 2016
    S. 271(1)(c): The law in Dilip Shroff 291 ITR 519 (SC) & Kaushalya 216 ITR 660 (Bom) requires a show-cause notice u/s 274 to be issued after due application of mind. The non-specification in the notice as to whether penalty is proposed for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars reflects non-application of mind and renders it void. The fact that the assessee participated in the penalty proceedings does not save it u/s 292B/292BB

    Dr. Sarita Milind Davare vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11781 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 271(1)(c)

  18. ITAT Mumbai · 29 Dec 2016
    S. 73 Explanation (speculation loss): If the assessee manages his transactions of sale and purchase of shares in cash segment and in future segment as a composite business, the transactions cannot be segregated to arrive at profit or loss in each segment separately. The provisions of the Income-tax Act cannot be interpreted to the disadvantage of the assessee and to segregate the transactions in cash and future segment which will be against the spirit of the taxation law

    J. M. Financial Services Ltd vs. JCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11780 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 73

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 29 Dec 2016
    S. 69C Bogus Purchases: Though S. 133(6) notices were returned unserved and the assessee could not produce the alleged bogus hawala suppliers, the entire purchases cannot be added as undisclosed income. The addition has to be restricted by estimating Gross Profit ratio on the purchases from the alleged accommodation entry providers

    Ashwin Purshotam Bajaj vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11779 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 69C

  20. ITAT Ahmedabad · 02 Jan 2017
    ITAT - Under section 48, full consideration to determine capital gains does not refer to market value but only to consideration referred to in sale deed.

    Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-12, Ahmedabad v. Akash Association

    (2017) TaxCorp(LJ) 11778 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51523&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.