“Section 17(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)143 judgments

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2577/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO.\n\n15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2576/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2575/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2574/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2573/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 2571/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost of such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the assessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the AO. 15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances

THANUSHKODI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2570/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

residence and thus 10% of cost\nof such equipments/perquisites is charged to tax in the hands of the\nassessee as per section 17(2) of the Act. The CIT(A) also confirmed the\naction of the AO.\n15. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and\ncircumstances

JOTHI NARAYANAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2569/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Section 132Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

{ "clean_text": "ITA Nos: 2569, 2570, 2571,\n2573 to 2577/Chny/2025\n\nPER BENCH:\n\nITA No(s). 2571, 2573 - 2577/CHNY/2025

RAJKUMAR PAVANKUMAR SHARMA,MAKARPURA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17(2)(v)

convinced with the explanation furnished by the assessee. He held that the amount paid by the employer to LIC constituted a perquisite under section 17(2)(v) of the Act and was taxable in the year of payment by the employer. The Assessing Officer further held that the exemption under ... jurisdiction by the assessee. 7. On the issue of taxability of Rs. 15,00,000/- paid to LIC, the CIT(Appeals) held that section 17(2)(v) of the Act clearly includes within the definition of perquisite any sum payable by the employer to effect a contract for annuity

DILEEPKUMAR BANKEYLAL PRADHAN,BHARATPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(7), VADODARA

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

ITA 713/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Shri Senthil Kumarthe Ito Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan Vs. Ward-4(1)(7) C/O. J. N. Goyal & Company Vadodara 390 007 C-162 Ranjeet Nagar Bharatpur Rajasthan – 321 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajeevkumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 15Section 17(2)(v)

Dileepkumar Bankeylal Pradhan vs. ITO AY : 2018-19 3 perquisite in the hands of the assessee in AY 2018-19 under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Section 17(2)(v) of the Act includes within the definition of perquisite any sum paid by the employer to effect ... employee has no vested right over the same, the payment made by the employer does not amount to a perquisite under section 17(2)(v) of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. L.W. Russel [1964] 53 ITR 91 (SC) clarified that amounts paid

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 7386/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Arun Khodpia(Physical Hearing) Dcit Novartis Healthcare Private Limited, Room No.320, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Te Vs 7Th Floor Inspire Bkc, G Block, Bkc Building, Pedder Road, Cumballa Main Road, Mumbai Hill, Mumbai [Pan:Aaacn5094N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 194HSection 254(1)

employee exercises the option because employee had to fulfill certain conditions in subsequent years. The appellant company contends that this perquisite value under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was taxable in A.Y. 2023-24 only. 8a. Per contra, Ld. DR argues that the appellant company has quantified ... liability on company arises only when the benefit is exercised and actually availed, but not at the stage of mere grant. b) Section 17(2) (vi) of the Act and the Explanation says that on the date of transfer or allotment, the difference between FMV of option on the date

ICICI SECURITIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI -4, MUMBAI

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

ITA 3766/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80G

shares on the date of exercise and the grant price was taxed in the hands of the employees as a perquisite under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee duly deducted tax at source under section

M/S. CITY UNION BANK LTD.,,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

DCIT(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. NOVARTIS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 2768/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Dcit(Tds)-2(3) Novartis Healthcare Private 320, 3Rd Floor, Cumbala Hill, Limited Mtnl Te Bldg. Peddar Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Inspire Bkc, G Gopalrao Deshmukh Marg Block, Bkc Main Road Mumbai-400 026. Bandra, Mumbai-400 051. Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 121/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2020-21)

For Respondent: S/Shri Anish Thacker (CA)

Section 133ASection 192Section 194Section 194HSection 201

employee exercises the option because employee had to fulfill certain conditions in subsequent years. The appellant company contends that this perquisite value under section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was taxable in A.Y. 2023-24 only. 8a. Per contra, Ld. DR argues that the appellant company has quantified ... liability on company arises only when the benefit is exercised and actually availed, but not at the stage of mere grant. b) Section 17(2)(vi) of the Act and the Explanation says that on the date of transfer or allotment, the difference between FMV of option on the date

DCIT, CIRCLE-76(1), NEW DELHI vs. NEHRU PLACE HOTELS PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI

In the result, the raising of demand and levy u/s

ITA 994/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Kapoor, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR

Section 201(1)

aboard, or accompanying as attendant to a patient going abroad for medical treatment/check-up." 31. It was argued that as per clause (vi), of section 17(2) any expenditure by the employer on travel and stay abroad of one attendant who a companies the patient in connection with such treatment ... such amount. 37. All the four transactions are discussed. 38. It is seen that as per item no.3 of clause (vi), of section 17(2) any expenditure by the employer on travel and stay abroad of one attendant who a companies the patient in connection with such treatment is allowed

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1479/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1478 & 1479/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 & 2021-22 M/S. City Union Bank, Pcit No. 148-149, T.S.R Big Street, Vs. Madurai – 1. Kumbakonam – 621 001. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aaacc-1287-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. S. Ananthan, Ca & Ms. R. Lalitha, Ca प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

M/S. CITY UNION BANK,KUMBAKONAM vs. PCIT,, MADURAI

In the result, both the appeals for A

ITA 1478/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Mr. S. Ananthan, CA and Ms. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

BISWAS MANIK,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 133(6)Section 17Section 17(2)(v)

this, the AO held that the amount Biswas Manik vs. ITO Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3– paid to LIC formed part of salary under Section 17(2)(v) of the Act, being a perquisite in the nature of a contract for an annuity. However, exemption under Section 10(10CC) was allowed ... behalf of employee will not amount to perquisite. 6.5 The contention of the appellant is not found to be acceptable. Provision of Section 17 (2) defines Perquisites as under: "1 7: For the purpose of sections 15 and 16 and of this section- (2) "perquisite" includes- (v) :any sum payable

THALAKKAD SERVICE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY BANK LIMITED,TIRUR vs. ITO, MALAPPURAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 708/COCH/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Thalakkad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Service Bank Buuilding, Vengalur Bp Angadi, Tirur, Malappuram 676102 [Pan: Aadat4570A] Vs. The Income Tax Officer - Tds, Tirur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri M. Ramkumar Menon, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri M. Ramkumar Menon, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 154Section 17(2)Section 2

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JM Assessment

SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2020-21\Nmr. Sanjiv Mehta\Nvs\Nprincipal Commissioner Of\Nworld Crest\Nlodha World Towers\Nw-5701 & E-5703\Nlower Parel\Nmumbai - 400013\N[Pan: Aanpm7571K]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nassessee By:\Nrevenue By :\Nincome-Tax – 1, Mumbai\Nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\Nshri Ketan Ved & Ms. Riya Shah, A/Rs\Nshri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit, D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 16/07/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:\N/07/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\N1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of\Nthe Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai\N[Hereinafter 'The Ld. Pr. Cit'] Dated 10/03/2025 Pertaining To Ay\N2020-21 Framed U/S 263 Of The Act.\N2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The\Nld. Pr. Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Conferred Upon Him By The\Nprovisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Holding That The\Nassessment Order Dated 25/08/2022 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The\Nact Is Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.\N3. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives\Nincome From Salary & Investments & Filed His Return Of Income On\Nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\Nincome Tax Appellate Tribunal\Nι.Τ.Α. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N2\N10/12/2020 Declaring Total Income At ₹ 23,71,38,203/-. The Return Was\Nselected For Scrutiny Assessment & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were\Nissued & Served Upon The Assessee. After Perusal Of The Return Of\Nincome, Materials Available On Record & Reply Furnished By The\Nassessee On Different Dates In Respect Of The Notices Issued, No Adverse\Ninference Was Drawn & The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was\Naccepted As Such.\N3.

For Respondent: \nIncome-tax – 1, Mumbai

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

n157674491\nS. No.\nNature of salary\nDescription\nAmount\n1\nBasic Salary\n70306896\n2\nOther Allowance\n87367595\n1b\nValue of perquisites as per section 17(2)\n32030913\nS. No.\nNature of perquisites\nDescription\nAmount\n***This space has been left blank intentionally, P.T.O.***\nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\nINCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nI.T.A ... n10192906\nla\nSalary as per section 17(1)\n0\nS. No.\nNature of salary\nDescription\nAmount\n1b\nValue of perquisites as per section 17(2)\n10192906\nS. No.\nNature of perquisites\nDescription\nAmount\n1\nOther benefits or amenities\nTAX GROSS UP\n10192906\nIc\nProfit in lieu of salary

Showing 1–20 of 143 · Page 1 of 8

...