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 Indore · 02 Sep 2016
    ITAT - Since assessee was himself ill due to which he could not maintain essential books, hence same constitutes a reasonable cause u/s 271B. Penalty deleted.

    Shri Parthsarthi Naidu Versus ITO, Ward 2 (1), Indore.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10979 (ITAT-INDORE) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=51052&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  2. AAR · 31 Aug 2016
    AAR - Capital-gains to a Mauritian company on transfer of shares of Indian asset management and trustee companies not taxable under article 13 of India-Mauritius DTAA.

    Shinsei Investment I Limited

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10969 (AAR)

  3. Bombay High Court · 30 Aug 2016
    Condonation of delay: An appeal wrongly filed before the AO and not CIT(A) is an unintentional lapse of the assessee. The AO ought to have returned the appeal to enable the assessee to take corrective steps. The likelihood of error is inherent in human nature The power of condonation is in view of human fallibility and must be exercised in cases of bona fide lapses

    Prashanth Projects Ltd vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10958 (HC-BOMBAY)

  4. Delhi High Court · 30 Aug 2016
    S. 14A Rule 8D: The AO must examine the accounts closely and determine if at all any expenditure could be ascribed to the tax exempt dividend/interest earned by the assessee. If the tax exempted income was earned without the interference of any employee the question of attributing any expenditure cannot arise at all

    Pradeep Khanna vs. ACIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10957 (HC-DELHI) · Section 14A

  5. Bombay High Court · 30 Aug 2016
    S. 256(1): Failure to serve reference as provided by Rule 658 of the Bombay High Court Rules upon the Respondent means that the applicant is not interested in pursuing the reference and the same has to be returned unanswered

    Naath Industries Pvt. Ltd vs. CIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10956 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 256(1)

  6. Bombay High Court · 30 Aug 2016
    S. 145A(a)(ii) applies only to goods and not services. Service-tax billed on rendering of services is not includible as trading receipts. No disallowance u/s 43B can be made for the unpaid service-tax liability which is not claimed as a deduction

    CIT vs. Knight Frank (India) Pvt. Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10955 (HC-BOMBAY) · Section 145A(a)(ii)

  7. Madras High Court · 29 Aug 2016
    HC - Writ dismissed - ITSC justified in rejecting application on the ground that additional income offered by assessee in the application was prima facie not full and true.

    Dix Francis Vs. The Income Tax Settlement Commission

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10949 (HC-MADRAS)

  8. Madras High Court · 26 Aug 2016
    A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a lawyer to gain popularity and publicity and attract more clients amounts to an unethical practice of soliciting work and is in violation of the Code of Conduct. The Media should not publish the names of the advocates who appeared in any case as it is an indirect method of soliciting work or indulging in advertisement of the professional abilities or skills of the advocates. The Media should also not publish the names of the Judges unless it is so essentially required

    S. Baskar Mathuram vs. The State of Tamil Nadu

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10948 (HC-MADRAS)

  9. Supreme Court · 26 Aug 2016
    S. 68: When the facts show that the loan applications of 37 alleged trade creditors were processed and handled by the assessee and that the loan amounts were not reflected in the returns of the alleged creditors, the High Court erred in remanding the matter to the AO on the ground that the AO ought to given notice to the alleged trade creditors

    CIT vs. Karnataka Planters Coffee Curing Work (P) Ltd

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10947 (SC) · Section 68

  10. Supreme Court · 26 Aug 2016
    S. 275: Penalty proceedings for contravention of Sections 269SS & 269T are not related to the assessment proceeding but are independent of it. Therefore, the completion of appellate proceedings arising out of the assessment proceedings has no relevance. Consequently, the limitation prescribed by s. 275(1)(a) does not apply. The limitation period prescribed in s. 275(1)(c) applies to such penalty proceedings

    CIT vs. Hissaria Brothers

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10946 (SC) · Section 275

  11. ITAT Chennai · 29 Aug 2016
    ITAT - The fact remains that the property was settled by way of family arrangement for convenient enjoyment and the property remains with assessee’s son and daughter. Therefore, the exemption u/s 54F/54 cannot be denied.

    Smt. Rukmani Santhanam Versus The Income Tax Officer, Business ward IV (4), Chennai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10944 (ITAT-CHENNAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50987&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  12. ITAT Pune · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - Since amount received from US company was primarily towards exclusive rights for marketing of specified products developed by assessee, no Sec. 10AA deduction to SEZ.

    DCIT. vs. Serum Institute of India Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10921 (ITAT-PUNE) · Section. 10AA

  13. ITAT Delhi · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - TDS u/s 195 not applicable on payment to an Israel company under annual maintenance contract as the same not taxable in India.

    ACIT. vs. HCL Comnet Ltd.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10920 (ITAT-DELHI)

  14. ITAT Delhi · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - As per FOB/FCA delivery terms, title passed ‘outside India’, therefore ‘Offshore supplies’ not taxable in India.

    Ion Geophysical Corporation Vs. DCIT

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10919 (ITAT-DELHI)

  15. ITAT Delhi · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - receipts from the pathological laboratory have to be considered as business receipts, as for earning professional receipts holding of a professional qualification would be sine qua non. Since gross receipts were only 42 lakhs, penalty u/s 271B quashed.

    Sushila Sharma Versus Income-Tax Officer

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10918 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50475&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  16. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - No Disallowance of loan processing charges and pre-payment charges paid to the bank. So long as the expenses incurred by the assessee are genuine and not part of any colorable device to make tax evasion, then such expenses should be allowed.

    Peepul Tree Properties P. Ltd. Versus Asst. CIT 5 (1) , Mumbai

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10917 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50497&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  17. ITAT Kolkata · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - If it is found that the assessee was accepting bogus donations, then that fact can only lead to an inference that the activities of the trust are not genuine or are not carried out in accordance with the objects of the trust. Continuance of registration under section 12A denied.

    Dr. B.G. Memorial Trust Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Exemption)

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10916 (ITAT-KOLKATA) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50336&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  18. ITAT Delhi · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - Merely because profits have resulted from the activities of imparting education, it would not result in change of character of the education that it was solely for educational purpose. Exemption allowable under section 11 & 12.

    Society for Participatory Research in Asia Versus Income Tax Officer (E) , Trust Ward-III, New Delhi

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10915 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50558&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  19. ITAT Mumbai · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - Since SIES has not specifically stated that the amount received from the assessee was returned back as per the modus operandi, it cannot be held conclusively that either no donation was paid by the assessee to SIES or the amount paid by the assessee was returned by SIES. Deduction u/s 80G allowed.

    M/s. Logus Realty Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Addl. CIT Range 8 (2) , Mumbai.

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10914 (ITAT-MUMBAI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenDT.aspx?ID=50919&Category=ITAT&CategoryType=Zip

  20. ITAT Delhi · 24 Aug 2016
    ITAT - In the case of amalgamation, the assessment must be made on the successor i.e. the amalgamated company and not on the predecessor i.e. amalgamating company.

    Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-16 (1), New Delhi

    (2016) TaxCorp(LJ) 10912 (ITAT-DELHI) · http://taxcorp.in/FileOpenINTL.aspx?ID=10631&Category=INTLDecisions&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.