← All Phrases

“Section 30(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 30Section 30(2)12 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 30(2) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 30(2)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

Shri Mohd. Ayub v. ITO
346 ITR 30 · 2012 · Reported
98
citing judgments

Each assessment year is an independent unit for income-tax purposes, requiring the issuance of a separate notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for a valid reassessment. Failure to issue such separate notices renders the assessment invalid.

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand
6 ITR 636 · 1938 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

CIT v. HDFC Bank
104 Taxmann.com 97 · 2019 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted merely because an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to make investments that yield exempt income. No disallowance is called for if no expenditure is found to have been incurred for earning exempt income.

FNF India Private Limited v. ACIT
194 ITD 463 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, when described in sections 30 to 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is allowable as business expenditure, as indicated by the explanatory memorandum to Finance Act No. 2, 2014.

Shantilal Godawat & Others v. ACIT
30 DTR 413 · 2009 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessment order served beyond the prescribed period of limitation is barred by limitation and is considered non-est in law.

153C of the Act. (iii) CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi
222 CTR 412 · 2009 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of an assessing officer after the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice, unless the objection is raised within 30 days of the notice under section 124(3)(a).

Judgments citing Section 30(2)

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Plan. The NCLT approved the above “Resolution Plan” as the said Plan was approved by the CoC since it is in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code vide its order dated 25.06.2019. 10. The ld. AR referred to page 124 to 130 of paper book and submits that ... aside the order of the NCLAT, confirmed the order of the NCLT approving the “Resolution Plan approved by the CoC in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code settling the operational creditors including the income-tax at NIL value. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty imposed under section

M/S Orchid Pharma Ltd. (Formerly M.S Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.), Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 276/CHNY/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.276 & 277/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Orchid Pharma Ltd. [Formerly Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of M.S. Orchid Chemicals & Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Ltd.] 313, Orchid Central Circle 1(1), Towers, Valluvarkottam High Road, Chennai. Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aaaco0402B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. & Shri Shrenik Chordia, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Common Order Both Dated 28.02.2022 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 238Section 271(1)(c)Section 30(2)Section 31(1)Section 35Section 36Section 37

Plan. The NCLT approved the above “Resolution Plan” as the said Plan was approved by the CoC since it is in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code vide its order dated 25.06.2019. 10. The ld. AR referred to page 124 to 130 of paper book and submits that ... aside the order of the NCLAT, confirmed the order of the NCLT approving the “Resolution Plan approved by the CoC in compliance of section 30(2) of the Code settling the operational creditors including the income-tax at NIL value. Therefore, in our opinion, the penalty imposed under section

Raj Rayon Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 830/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.830/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2017-18) Raj Rayon Industries Ltd बिधम/ Pcit-3 Survey No. 177/1/3 & 612, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. 177/1/4, Village Surangi, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Silvassa-396230 (Ut Of Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadra & Nagar Haveli & Daman & Diu)-396230. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr7820E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Satish Mody Revenue By: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-03 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”], Mumbai Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18 Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Satish ModyFor Respondent: Shri T. Sankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

able to pay back its debt and get back on its feet. 13. The Adjudicating Authority conducts an enquiry in terms of Section 30(2) of IBC on the point as to whether the Resolution Plan provides, inter alia, the repayment of the debts of Operational Creditors in the prescribed