“Section 17(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 17(2) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 17(2)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.

341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court

270

citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India

257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court

121

citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.

297 ITR 167 · 2008 · Supreme Court

115

citing judgments

Allotment of shares to employees under an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) before April 1, 2000, is not a taxable perquisite if the benefit's value is unascertainable at the time of option exercise due to conditions like a lock-in period.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association

247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court

112

citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO

148 Taxmann.com 17 · High Court

100

citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society on its funds deposited with banks is considered business income, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT

325 ITR 422 · 2010 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

ACIT v. Bharat V.Patel

92 Taxmann.com 336 · 2018 · Reported

citing judgments

An assessee cannot be subjected to tax in the absence of a specific provision allowing for such taxation.

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT

57 ITR 185 · 1965 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A transfer of an immovable asset for capital gains purposes requires an effective conveyance through a registered sale deed to pass title. Prior to the amendment introducing Section 2(47)(v), transactions involving mere execution of documents or granting possession without registration were not considered complete transfers for tax.

Judgments citing Section 17(2)

DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Indusind Bank Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 3675/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Kalpexh Unadkat &For Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

benefit and the value of benefit, if any, was unascertainable at the time when options were exercised. The Finance Act, 1999 inserted section 17(2)(iiia) with effect from 1st April, 2000 providing that : "the value of my specified security allotted or transferred, directly or indirectly, by any person free ... directly or indirectly, by the employer, or former employer, free of cost or at concessional rate to these Clause (c) of Explanation to section 17(2)(vi) provides that the value of any specified security or sweat equity shares shall be the fair market value of the specified security

Indusind Bank Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Income Tax Appeal is

ITA 1842/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 35DSection 36(1)(via)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 43B

Ajay Jain, Lucknow vs. ACIT-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Ajay Jain, Vs. Acit-3, A-22, Sector J, Aliganj Extension, Lucknow New Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aaqpj0273N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(Appeals)-13, Mumbai Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.05.2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Appeal Filed U/S 250 Should Have Been Accepted By The Learned Lower Court. 3. Learned Lower Court Erred In Confirming The Addition Made In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Ignoring The Various Replies & Evidences Filed Before The Learned Assessing Officer. 4. That Learned Lower Court Erred In Making Addition Of Rs 5,47,960/- Against Payments Made For Credit Card Being 10% Of The Total Payments Made To Cr Cards When No Expenses Were Claimed By The Appellant In Its Own Return. 5. That The Additions Made Are Bad In Law On The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 6. That The Addition Made Are Too Excessive, Arbitrary & Without Any Basis. 1 Ajay Jain A.Y. 2016-17 7. That The Order Passed Is Against The Merit, Circumstances & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 8. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

business of the firm, they are potentially liable to be added back in his hands as a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2)(iv). Of course, if the assessee makes out a case that these represent expenditures incurred for the business of the firm, these are not liable

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

computed as the difference between the FMV of the share on the date of exercise and the exercise price. According to provisions of section 17(2) of the Act, said item is taxable in ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 11– the hands of employees

Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes, whereas the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Avanse Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 473/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, SR. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 37(1)

that time, the Act did not contain any specific provisions to tax the benefits on ESOPs. Section 17(2)(iiia) was inserted by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1-4-2000. Therefore, it is evident that law recognizes a real benefit in the hands of the employees

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Avanse Financial Services Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 472/MUM/2025[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia, SR. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 37(1)

Maruti Keshavrao Didhore, Aurangabad vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1, Aurangabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 449/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 17(3)(i)Section 89

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Rahul Jesmin Seth, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-22(5), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 307/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K., Vice- & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 307/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rahul Jesmin Seth, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. Ef, 15Th Floor, Sapphire Non Corporate Ward –22(5), Block K, Olympia Opaline No. 33, Tambaram, Chennai. Omr Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Navallur, Chennai 603 103. [Pan: Bhsps-7395-L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A. Sasi Kumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 19.03.2025 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 23.12.2024 Pertains To The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Raised 18 Grounds Of Appeal, Amongst Which, Besides Challenging The Exparte Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), The Assessee Also Agitated That The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Additions Of ₹.27,31,000/- Being The Cash Deposits Made In Sbns During The Demonetization Period

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasi Kumar, CIT

Section 10Section 10(14)(ii)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 17(2)Section 250Section 69

exemption of ₹.1,50,000/- claimed under section 10(13A) of the Act and denial of deduction of ₹.15,000/- claimed under section 17(2) of the Act in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual ... claim of HRA exemption of ₹.1,50,000/- under section 10(13A) of the Act and medical allowance of ₹.15,000/- under section 17(2) of the Act. Thus, by allowing conveyance allowance under section 10(14)(ii) of the Act of ₹.19,200/-, the Assessing Officer computed the income

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

that time, the Act did not contain any specific provisions to tax the benefits on ESOPs. Section 17(2) (iiia) was inserted by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000: Therefore, it is evident that law recognizes a real benefit in the hands of the employees. For the aforementioned reasons

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shillong vs. Achula Darneichong Sailo, Shillong

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

ITA 119/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati22 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Manomohan Das & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 10(26)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

resolution of the matter, I checked and filed the appeal, since the order was already passed. I also attach herewith approval order under section 17(2) issued by the office of the chief commissioner of income tax, Shillong, in respect of the hospital for your record. Please let me know

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Prakash Nimmagadda, Hyderabad, Secunderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 974/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.974/Hyd/2017 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy.Cit Vs. Shri Prakash Nimmagadda Circle 1(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acbpn4246R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/11/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 16/12/2024 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order, Dated 20/03/2017 Of The Learned Cit (A)-9, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2008-09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT(DR)

Section 17(2)(c)Section 28

value cannot Page 40 of 43 ITA No 974 of 2017 Prakash Nimmagadda be ascertained and taxed. Such a mechanism does exist in Section 17(2)(c)(iii) w.e.f. 1-4-2001 for shares allotted under ESOP / sweat equity. Similarly, section 56(2)(vii) and (viia) provides to taxing

Rakesh Saxena, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 823/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 263Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

Syngenta India Private Limited (Earlier Known As Syngenta India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 4414/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale

Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Syngenta India Pvt Ltd ( Erstwhile Known As Syngenta India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3831/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale

Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Syngenta India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3449/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale

Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Syngenta India Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AY 2015-16 to 2018-19 are partly allowed

ITA 3448/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora & Shri PranayFor Respondent: Shri Nagnath Bhimrao Pasale

Section 10(1)Section 115Section 35(1)(iv)Section 37(1)

Ashok Kumar, Bharatpur vs. The PCIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

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

ITA 824/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT DR

Section 10Section 17(2)Section 22Section 263Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1229/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)

that time, the Act did not contain any specific provisions to tax the benefits on ESOPs. Section 17(2)(iiia) was inserted by Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000. Therefore, it is evident that law recognizes a real benefit in the hands of the employees. For the aforementioned reasons

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Algonomy Software Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for AY 2016-17 to 2018-

ITA 1226/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S.

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, CIT-DR

Section 133ASection 14Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 9(1)(vii)