← All Phrases

“Section 2(9)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(9)73 judgments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 2398/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

resident insurers towards cession of risk. It was alleged that such payment was in contravention of section 101A(7) read with section 2(9) of the Insurance Act. On this basis, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,48,12,97,423/- under section

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-8(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the revenue’s bearing ITA No

ITA 1450/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

resident insurers towards cession of risk. It was alleged that such payment was in contravention of section 101A(7) read with section 2(9) of the Insurance Act. On this basis, the Ld. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,48,12,97,423/- under section

TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (TAGIC),MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nMUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

adjudication in this court was raised and adjudicated by the Delhi High Court. 62. The expression, "judgment" has been defined in section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The judgment means the statement given by a judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Meaning thereby

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2834/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI \nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nSHRI RAHUL

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI \nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \nSHRI RAHUL

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2620/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI \nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -3(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2618/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n\"I\" BENCH, MUMBAI\nSHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nSHRI RAHUL

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी टी

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

{"clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'C' BENCH, CHENNAI\nश्री एबी

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

retains the essential features of the earlier provision with the difference that the rate of tax is ENHANCED from 30% to 60%. Simultaneously, Section 2(9) of Chapter II of the Finance Act, 2016 was amended by inserting the Seventh proviso to provide for a levy of surcharge

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1499/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Thus, the company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which is formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a banking company as defined in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Thus, the company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which is formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a banking company as defined in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1497/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Thus,\nthe company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which\nis formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the\nCompanies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a\nbanking company as defined in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1496/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Thus,\nthe company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which\nis formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the\nCompanies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a\nbanking company as defined in section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. CANARA BANK (ERSTWHILE SYNDICATE BANK), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1495/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Thus,\nthe company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which\nis formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the\nCompanies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a\nbanking company as defined in section

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. NFAC, CIT(APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

Thus, the company for the purpose of the Income Tax Act is a company which is formed and registered under the Companies Act. Section 2(9) of the Companies Act, 2013, a banking company has been defined to mean a banking company as defined in section

SANJAY KUMAR KARNANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 675/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 153ASection 250Section 68

{ "clean_text": "आIT A Nos.56 to 61/JP/2025\nShri Ambika Garments vs. ACIT\n\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायाधी, जयपुर\nIN

Showing 1–20 of 73 · Page 1 of 4