← All Phrases

“Section 2(43)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(43)97 judgments

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1781 & 1782/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacu2690P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar : 04/03/2026 : 13/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 01/08/2025 & Dated 07/08/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 & A.Υ. 2018-19 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1781 & 1782/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacu2690P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar : 04/03/2026 : 13/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 01/08/2025 & Dated 07/08/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 & A.Υ. 2018- 19 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad 'A' Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राव, उपाध्यक्ष

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

taxes, which are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act and do not fall within the definition of “tax” under section 2(43) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, are allowable as business expenditure. 39. On the contrary, the learned DR before us opposed

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

taxes, which are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act and do not fall within the definition of “tax” under section 2(43) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, are allowable as business expenditure. 39. On the contrary, the learned DR before us opposed

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

taxes, which are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act and do not fall within the definition of “tax” under section 2(43) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, are allowable as business expenditure. 39. On the contrary, the learned DR before us opposed

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

taxes, which are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act and do not fall within the definition of “tax” under section 2(43) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, are allowable as business expenditure. 39. On the contrary, the learned DR before us opposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR
Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

SOPHOS TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company, being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company. being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company. being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

MITSUI KINZOKU COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LTD,REWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WARD TWO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company. being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

covered with in the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under ... preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2 (43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is 24 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015

ADDL CIT 2(3), MUMBAI vs. TATA INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

Accordingly,\nGround No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore\nstands dismissed

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40

covered with\nin the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax'\nin Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be\npayable under ... definition with\nthe word \"In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires\" the meaning of the word\n'tax' as found in Section 2 (43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is\n\n24\nITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012\nITA No.5690/MUM/2015

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SAMA RAMACHANDRA REDDY L/R BY HIS WIFE SAMA YASHODHA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

view of the aforesaid discussion and on reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology “tax in arrears” as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take

DCIT., CIRCLE-8(1), HYDERABAD vs. LATE SAMA RAMACHANDRA REDDY L/R BY HIS WIFE SAMA YASHODHA, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1065/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

view of the aforesaid discussion and on reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology “tax in arrears” as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take

LILAVANTIBEN GORDHANBHAI PADARIYA,RAJKOT vs. ITO, WARD 1(1)(3), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

GANPATI GEMS & JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. ASSTT./DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 36/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2017-2018
For Appellant: Shri G. M. Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 10ASection 10A(5)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR\nडा० एस

Showing 1–20 of 97 · Page 1 of 5

Section 2(43) — 97 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax