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 Ahmedabad · 23 Sep 2016
    ITAT - The extra-ordinary circumstance forming primary reason of cash payment is that there were some DRT proceedings wherein the assessee was in urgent need of money. No addition u/s 68.

    The ITO, Ward-4, Navsari Versus Thakorbhai Chhotubhai Patel

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11144 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51403&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  2. P&H High Court · 23 Sep 2016
    HC - While granting registration u/s 12AA, it would be open to the Registering Authority to grant the same by imposing any condition, which would bind the Company to indulge in only charitable activities.

    Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus IILM Foundation Academy, Gurgaon

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11143 (HC-P&H) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=66334&Category=Judgment&CategoryType=Zip

  3. Bombay High Court · 22 Sep 2016
    HC - Revenue cannot reject the revised method of accounting except in cases covered by proviso to Sec.145(1) or Sec. 145(2). change in the method of ascertaining cost for the purpose of stock valuation from “lowest price during the year” to “weighted average cost” justified.

    Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11142 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Gujarat High Court · 21 Sep 2016
    HC - AO's reasons establish 'prima facie' case for initiating re-assessment for alleged profits diversion using tax-haven.

    Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11141 (HC-GUJARAT)

  5. ITAT Mumbai · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Vacancy allowance u/s 23(1)(c) is available only when property actually is let out. Notion of ‘intent to let out’ or ‘proposed to be let’, etc., cannot be imported into the provision, which seeks to tax a notional sum

    Sharan Hospitality Private Limited vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11140 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section. 23(1)(c)

  6. ITAT Mumbai · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Once the commission is accepted to have been paid, there is no logic in disallowing such expenditure on the ground of being excessive. It is for the assessee to determine the way in which it has to carry on its business.

    Anand Enterprises Versus Jt. CIT 18 (2), Mumbai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11139 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51387&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  7. ITAT Mumbai · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Where addition was made on cessation of liability (Amount of advance received for sale of property), the amount of advance received will have to be be reduced from the cost of acquisition of asset while computing capital gains.

    ITO, 3 (1) (4), Mumbai Versus M/s Fiesta Properties Pvt Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11138 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51250&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  8. ITAT Delhi · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - The assessee would be hit by Explanation 1(B) to S. 271(1)(c) and would be still liable to pay penalty. One’s own mistake or delay can’t be used to advance one’s cause. In law, nobody can claim the benefit of delays or mistakes on his own part; though it may advance the cause of the other side.

    Nicotra India Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT Circle 13 (1), New Delhi.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11137 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51388&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  9. ITAT Delhi · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Whereas the expenditure of a capital nature incurred on the renovation etc. of a building, which is not owned by the assessee but in respect of which the assessee holds mere occupancy rights, cannot be allowed deduction as a revenue expense, but such expenditure of a capital nature is liable to be considered as a building owned by the assessee for the purposes of section 32 and hence depreciation is allowable pro tanto.

    Cornell Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-3 (1), New Delhi.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11136 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51254&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  10. ITAT Ahmedabad · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Providing medical, maternity, nursery, fertility and vaccination facilities to bovine milch animals belonging to milk producers in lieu of collecting cess @ 12 paisa per liter of the milk produced cannot be called a trade, commerce or business. Exemption claim was wrongly denied by invoking section 2(15) proviso.

    Amul Research and Development Association, C/o Amul Dairy Premises Versus The ITO, Ward-3, Income Tax Office, Anand

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11135 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51392&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  11. ITAT Mumbai · 22 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Expenses cannot be considered to be incurred wholly and exclusive for the purpose of the business as the same were incurred to create good relations with the doctors in lieu of expected favours from doctors for recommending to patients the pharmaceutical products.

    The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (3), Mumbai Versus Liva Healthcare Limited And Vice-Versa

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11134 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51251&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. ITAT Mumbai · 21 Sep 2016
    Transfer Pricing: The assessee is obliged to carry out a bench-marking exercise with independent comparables and prove that its transactions with AEs are at arms length. Mere fact that the transaction is approved by the RBI and Govt is not sufficient

    Sara Lee TTK Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11133 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  13. ITAT Mumbai · 20 Sep 2016
    Entire law on whether consideration for alienation of rights under a "Call Option agreement" for shares is taxable as "capital gains" or as "income from other sources" in the context of the India-Singapore DTAA explained

    Praful Chandaria vs. ADIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11132 (ITAT-MUMBAI)

  14. ITAT Cochin · 20 Sep 2016
    S. 234E: Prior to the amendment to s. 200A w.e.f. 01.06.2015, the fee for default in filing TDS statements cannot be recovered from the assessee-deductor

    Little Servants of Divine Providence Providence Charitable Trust vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11131 (ITAT-COCHIN) · Section 234E

  15. ITAT Jaipur · 20 Sep 2016
    S. 271B: Penalty for delay in furnishing tax audit report should not be imposed if there is no mala fide reason for the delay. Dispute with auditor is a reasonable cause u/s 273B for the delay in furnishing the tax audit report

    Gemorium vs. ITO

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11130 (ITAT-JAIPUR) · Section 271B

  16. Supreme Court · 21 Sep 2016
    Refundable deposits received by a housing company for allotment of flats and future maintenance is business income. However, share capital received for allotment of flats is a capital receipt and not income. The principles of mutuality does not apply to such transactions

    G. S. Homes & Hotels P. Ltd vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11129 (SC)

  17. ITAT Mumbai · 20 Sep 2016
    S. 153A: Even in a case where only a s. 143(1) assessment is made, additions cannot be made without the backing of incriminating material if the s. 143(1) assessment has not abated

    Anil Mahavir Gupta vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11128 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · Section 153A

  18. Bombay High Court · 21 Sep 2016
    HC - Share issue expenses at the instance of Government-directive is not revenue in nature. not allowable u/s 37(1).

    Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11127 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section. 37(1)

  19. Madras High Court · 21 Sep 2016
    HC - Writ Allowed - CCIT’s order rejecting compounding application for offence committed by the assessee u/s 276B (i.e. TDS default) u/s 279(2) set aside.

    V. A. Haseeb and Co. vs. CCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11126 (HC-MADRAS)

  20. Karnataka High Court · 20 Sep 2016
    HC - Intimation raising demand prior to 1.6.2015 u/s 200A levying Sec 234E late fees is not valid.

    Fathehraj Singhvi vs. UOI

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 11125 (HC-KARNATAKA) · Sections. 200A, 234E

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.