Which cases are most cited on Section 2(41)?

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275) — 204 citing judgments; Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT (261 ITR 501) — 147 citing judgments; Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (201 ITR 684) — 133 citing judgments; CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd. (341 ITR 467) — 108 citing judgments; LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (140 ITD 41) — 107 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 2(41)?

BharatTax indexes 28 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 2(41) (Section 2(41)).

← All Phrases

“Section 2(41)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(41)?

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(41), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax. A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(41)28 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(41) is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(41)

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.

261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court

204

citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT

261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court

147

citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court

133

citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.

341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court

108

citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT

140 ITD 41 · 2013 · ITAT

107

citing judgments

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer can benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses as an international transaction if it creates or is intended to create economic or commercial benefit for an associated enterprise. The 'bright line' method can be used for this purpose.

DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait

41 SOT 290 · 2010 · ITAT

citing judgments

Mark-to-Market (MTM) losses on forward contracts and forex derivatives are allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1) where a binding obligation is created against the assessee. This is provided the assessee consistently follows the same accounting method for both profits and losses.

CIT v. Varas International

284 ITR 80 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.

330 ITR 62 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

Judgments citing Section 2(41)

Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI PRABHASH

Vibhuti Bhatnagar, Gurgoan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Gurgaon (Haryana), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6495/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.6495/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13) Vibuti Bhatnagar, D-223, First Floor, Sector-30, Jalvayu Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Pan: Antpb-5936-A बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Hsiidc Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udhyog Vihar, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant By : S/Shri Prem Rajpal & Pulak Rajpal, Advocates, (Through Vc) प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 25.02.2025, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 166 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, I Am Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus, Delay Of 166 Days In Filing Of Appeal Is Condoned & Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits.

For Appellant: S/Shri Prem Rajpal & Pulak Rajpal, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(41)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Sharad Panwar, Shahdara, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Vikas Bhawan, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3927/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanआअसं.3927/ िद"ी /2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, Mig Dda Flats, East Of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Bcrpp-9210-P बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent New Delhi 110002 Assessee By : None Department By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 28.06.2024, For Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The Appeal Is Time Barred By 288 Days. The Assessee Has Filed An Application Supported By An Affidavit Citing Reasons Causing Delay In Filing Of Appeal. After Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That Delay In Filing Of Appeal Is Not Intentional, The Delay Has Been Caused For The Reasons Stated In Petition Which Appears To Be Bonafide. Thus

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(41)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “एफ”, िद"ी "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी एस "रफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद" के सम

Scholars Education Trust of India, Jaipur vs. CIT Exemption, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT

Section 10Section 10(23)(vi)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)Section 13(3)Section 153(5)Section 2(41)

Rs.18,429/- Sh. Aryan Mishra for Trust activity in Lucknow, despite the fact that the said person is not a relative as per Section 2(41) of the Act and hence there is no violation of Section 13(3) of the Act and in any case registration u/s.10 ... furtherance charitable and educational purposes of the Society. 29. Pertinently, Mr. Aaryan Mishra is ex-facie not a relative (asdefined under Section 2(41) of the Act) of any trustee of the Assessee Society as it is undisputed that he is not the husband, wife, brother, sister, or lineal ascendant

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat vs. Surendran Nanoo, Kerala

ITA 821/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.821/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(2)Section 68

ABTPN4978Q) and Shri N. Suseelan (PAN: ABTPN4977B) are brothers and are having individual sources of income. They are relatives within the meaning of section 2(41) of the Act. The brothers were also shareholders in various companies run by them including SD Health and Fitness Pvt. Ltd. and Syama Dynamic

M.P. Santhosh Kumar, ITO, Chennai vs. Greenpeace Environment Trust, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 406/CHNY/2025[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 406/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Greenpeace Environment Trust, Exemptions, Ward-1, Vs. New No.49, Old No.23, Chennai. Ellaiamman Colony, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600 086. [Pan:Aaatg-3538-R] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Kumar Chandan, Jcit. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Mr. Kumar Chandan, JCITFor Respondent: Shri. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A

Section 11Section 12ASection 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(c)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

these provisions, the term relative will have the enlarged connotation as under the existing law. According to the definition of relative in section 2(41) an individuals relatives will comprise the individuals husband, wife, brother, sister and lineal ascendants and descendants of the individual. For the purposes

Lalit Kapoor, Rohtak vs. CIT Appeal, Income-Tax Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid

ITA 3927/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 2(41)Section 56(2)(vi)Section 69A

Abhinav Malik, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Delhi

ITA 3525/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanabhinav Malik Income Tax Officer, D 114, Saket, Ward-31(1), Delhi-110 017 Vs. Delhi. Pan:Aiypm6590K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Divya Gujral, Ca Department By Shriyogesh Kumar Nayyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2024

For Appellant: (i) That the transaction in hand i.e., the property transacted located at 18, Bl

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 56(2)(vii)

correct. The section clearly lays down that the Clause shall not apply to any sum of money or property received from any 'relative'. Section 2(41) of the Act defines 'relative' in relation to an individual means the husband, wife, brother or sister or any lineal ascendant or descendant

Narayan Das Talreja, N.S.M., Azadpur, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2564/DEL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.2564/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2018-19) Narain Dass Talreja, (Through Kishore Talreja Lr) B-206, New Subzi Mandi, Azad Pur, Delhi-110033 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Acspt-4460-B बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, ..... "ितवादी/Respondent National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri K.P Ganguly & Narender Kumar, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 19/09/2024 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 18/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 19.07.2023, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief As Emanating From Records Are: The Assessee Is A Commission Agent & Is Engaged In Trading Of Fresh Fruits. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Impugned Assessment Year Declaring Income Of Rs.9,30,120/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Found That In Violation Of Provisions Of U/S. 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) The Assessee Has Made Payment In Cash In Excess Of Rs.10,000/- To A Single Person & There Are Several Such Payments. Hence, He Made Disallowance U/S. 40A(3) Of The Act On Following Transactions:

For Appellant: S/Shri K.P Ganguly, & Narender Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 40A(2)Section 40A(3)

been made merely on the basis of comparative commission payments made by the assessee to his son and his brother. As per section 2(41) of the Act, brother and son both fall within the definition of relative. Hence, the AO has erred in coming to conclusion that excessive payments

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Usha Gupta, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 826/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Sudhir Kumarita No. 826/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Usha Gupta, Circle-28(1), D-7/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaipg0549G Assessee By : Sh. Anil Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Monika Dhami, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.09.2023 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Dhami, CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 24Section 56(2)

inquiry, creditworthiness of the lender is not verified.” 3. Ishwar Chand Rs.6,00,000  Mr. Ishwar chand was real brother [relative as per section 2(41)] of the assessee as income Tax Act-1961.  The assessee has received Rs.11 lacs from his brother Late Sh. Ishwar Chand in two transactions

Hatch Tact Innovations Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Pr. CIT, Faridabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1261/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2016-17 Hatch Tact Innovations Private Vs Pr. Cit, Limited, Faridabad. C2/215, Jal Vayu Towers, Sector 56, Gurgaon (Haryana) – 122 002. Pan: Aadch5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Ms Sapna Bhatia, Cit-Dr & Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR &

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56(2)(viib)

submitted that the ld.PCIT has erroneously held that the books of account were not maintained for whole of the period, because as per section 2(41) of the 5 Companies Act, 1956, the assessee was required to maintain account upto 31st March of the next following year in case

Raina Garg, Bhopal vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 334/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Indore12 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Raina Garg, Ito-4(1), Prop. M/S. Garg Trading Bhopal Company, बनाम/ Purana Kabadkhana, Vs. Jumerati, Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Aawpg4732F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

submission (ii) of assessee is also very much correct that only 3 persons fall under the ambit of section 40A(2) read with section 2(41) and not all 6 persons for which the AO has made disallowance. The order of CIT(A) in para no. 4.1.1 re-produced above

M/S Real Time Infractive Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-3(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1016/MUM/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar

Section 143(3)Section 79

event of death of any shareholder or on account of a gift by any shareholder to his relatives, as defined in section 2(41) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 26.4 These amendments will come into force with effect from 1st April, 1989, and will, accordingly, apply in relation ... Officer to verify whether the change of shareholding was on account of gift by the existing shareholder to their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act and accordingly apply the applicable provisions of Section 79 of the Act read with first proviso thereto. In terms

Lalita Kumari, Anta District Baran vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Kabra (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(a)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 44A

relatives of the assessee covered u/s 40A(2)(b). However, such observation was made without referring to the definition of “relative” as per section 2(41) as per which a son of brother-in-law is not a relative. 3.) The AO further observed that the assessee had given interest ... 2)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 are as follows: i. where the assessee is an individual any relative of the assessee. Section 2(41) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 defines the term relative as follows:- “relative”, in relation to an individual, means the husband, wife, brother or sister

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

were present in the case of M.R. Seetharam (HUF) (supra) held that the lands sold are agricultural lands and not capital assets under section 2(41) of the Act. In coming to this decision, the co- ordinate bench of this Tribunal placed reliance of these earlier decisions of different

Kirtikumar T Doshi (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 556/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 555/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi, ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan:Aaapd-9244-R बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent आअसं. 556/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2014-15) Kirtikumar T. Doshi(Huf) ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant 259, Johari Mansion, 2Nd Floor, Kalbadevi Road, Mumbai 400 002. Pan: Aaehk-0147-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-18(2)(1), Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shankar

Section 2(41)Section 40A(2)(b)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” , मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम

Kirtikumar T Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO, 18(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed for parity of reasons

ITA 555/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.N.RaoFor Respondent: Shri Shankar

Section 2(41)Section 40A(2)(b)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एस एम सी” , मुंबई "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य के सम

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

were present in the case of M.R. Seetharam (HUF) (supra) held that the lands sold are agricultural lands and not capital assets under section 2(41) of the Act. In coming to this decision, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal placed reliance of these earlier decisions of different

Shanker Trading (P) Ltd vs. The CIT

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 53 / 2000HC Delhi09 Jul 2012

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

Commissioner of Income Tax Del vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 247 / 2002HC Delhi09 Jul 2012

For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal

Section 201