“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)

Piyush Mathur, Banglore vs. ACIT Circle Int. Tax 2(2)(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 351/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Kumar MathurFor Respondent: Shri Vizay B. Vasanta, CIT- DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(2)(b)Section 17(2)Section 9(1)(i)

provided copy of bank statement. The Ld. AO perused Form 16 and found that the assessee has not received any perquisite under section 17(2) of the Act and that no tax was paid by the employer on behalf of the assessee. He, therefore held that benefit of section

The Fathers House, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 408/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)

Rs.19,61,761/-, Rs.20,80,024/- & Rs.29,69,710/- for A.Y. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 respectively ignoring the provisions of section 17(2) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned addition confirmed ignoring the provisions of law may please be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the above following ground

The Fathers House, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) NFAC`, Delhi

ITA 407/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)

The Fathers House, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

ITA 406/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, D.R

Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 17(2)

Thomas Cook (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 1 (3)92), Mumbai

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

ITA 7807/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Thomas Cook (India) Ltd., Dy. Cit-1(3)(2), A Wing, 11Th Floor, Marathon Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Vs. Futurex, N.M. Joshi Marg, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Lower Parel (East), Road, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaact 4050 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ketan Ved Revenue By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Dr : Date Of Hearing 30/05/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/05/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, DR

Section 115Section 115JSection 14ASection 37(1)

benefits on not contain any specific provisions to tax the benefits on not contain any specific provisions to tax the benefits on ESOPs. Section 17(2)(iiia) Section 17(2)(iiia) was inserted by Finance Act Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 01.04.2000. Therefore, it is evident that law recognizes

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 38/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the Ld. AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee ... Considering the facts of the instant case and the submissions made by the Ld. AR and the provisions of section 17(2)(v) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal

Shri G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 37/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

G Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 36/VIZ/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 35/VIZ/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 34/VIZ/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Sri Gottumukkala Vijaya Raghava Raju, Kakinada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2, Guntur

In the result, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 33/VIZ/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Apr 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari &For Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153C

Dhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Vadodara vs. DCIT CPC, Bengalaru

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 59/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhdhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi, Ito- Ward 2(5), Bharuch, B-17, Jash Villa, Satsang Gujarat / Vs. Bungalows, Old Padra Road, Cpc Bangalore . Vadodara, Gjuarat-390020. Bcmehta_05@Yahoo.Com Ph;942744114204 Pan No. Acapc 0450 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(14)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 17(2)Section 254(1)

employer’s contribution to approved superannuation fund not be treated as ITA 59/Srt/2022 Dhanesh Jayantilal Chokshi Vs DCIT (CPC) perquisite under section 17(2). The reply of assessee was not accepted by assessing officer / CPC and made adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) by assessing total income ... 2,35,318/-was aggregate contribution to the assessees account for FY 2016-17 for contribution to approved superannuation fund. And as per section 17(2)(vii) the amount of any contribution to an approved superannuation fund by the employer in respect of the employee, to the extent it exceeds

Unilever Industries Private Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Range 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal, the same fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 1015/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleunilever Industries Pvt Vs. Acit, Range – 1(3)(1) Ltd., Room No 504, 5 Floor, Unilever House, Bd Aayakar Bhavan, Sawant Marg, Chakala, M.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai -400099. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacu0791P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala & Mr.Hiten Chande.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 02.01.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed U/S 143(3) & U/Sec144C(13) R.W.S 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Passed In Pursuance To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) Order U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 26.02.2021.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal. Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. General: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Transfer Pricing) -4(2)(2) ("Tpo") Subsequent To The Directions Issued By The Hon'Ble Drp Has Erred In Assessing The Total Income At Rs. 152,67,16,425 As Against Returned Income Of Rs. 116,80,08,280 Computed By The Appellant. 2. Parti-Transfer Pricing Adjustments: Transfer Pricing ('Tp') Adjustment On Account Of Benchmarking & Allocation Of Royalty In Respect Of Provision Of Scientific & Technical Services ('Contract R&D')

For Appellant: Ms.Jasmin Amalsadvala &For Respondent: Mr. Jayant Jhaveri.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

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 Unilever Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. recognizes a real benefit in the hands

Amee Foster Wheeler India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Corporate Range-1, Chennai

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

ITA 680/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 680/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Amec Foster Wheeler India Pvt. The Acit (Osd), Ltd., Vs. Corporate Range -1, Zenith Building, 6Th Floor, Chennai Ascendas It Park, Csir Road, Taramani, Chennai – 600 113. Pan : Aaacf 3204C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. K.Amulya, Ca & Ms. V. Rajeswari, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai In Ita No.479/16-17/Cit(A)-4/A.Y.2014-15 Dated 06.02.2020. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit(Osd), Corporate Range-1, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Vide Order Dated 29.12.2016. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Making Disallowance Of Cost Incurred In Connection With Off The Shelf Software Products Treating The Same As Royalty Under The Provisions Of The Act Read With Relevant Treaties. For This, Assessee Raised Ground Nos. 2 To 4 But The Relevant Ground Is Ground No.2, Which Reads As Under:- “2. The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Ao Erred In Non-Consideration Of The Fact That The Said Expenditure Merely Represents Cost To Cost Reimbursement Of Expenditure Incurred On Behalf Of The Appellant By Afwg Overseas Entities & Therefore, No Income Arises In The Hands Of Afwg Entities Necessitating The Obligation To Withhold Taxes On The Part Of The Appellant Under The Provisions Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Ms. K.Amulya, CA &For Respondent: Shri S. Marudhu Pandyan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)Section 9(1)(vii)

that the same is to be applied only for the purpose of valuation of perquisites. We find that even the proviso to section 17(2)(iii) of the Act no where contemplated the eligibility of allowability of deduction of ESOP expenditure for an assessee. In any case, if the proviso

M/S Sunshine Communication Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1294/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sunshine Communication Asst. Cit, Central Circle-5(4), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 1927, 19Th Floor, Air 1St Floor, Capri, Anant Kanekar Vs. India Building, Nariman Point, Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadcs 4276 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nimesh Thar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Nimesh Thar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chetan M. Kacha, DR

Section 143(3)

directors can be treated as extended by the company to the directors can be treated as perquisites un perquisites under the provisions of section 17(2) of the Act which der the provisions of section 17(2) of the Act which can be brought to tax in India hands

Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2285/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT 3(2), Mumbai vs. Idea Cellular Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2273/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘I-2‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 413/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.413/Bang/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

Section 192Section 195Section 37Section 40Section 92C

price/full price of the shares granted under these schemes are considered as a part of 'perquisite' taxable in the hands of employees under section 17(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the Company has deducted appropriate TDS under section 192 of the Act. ESOP Cross-charqes represents actual cost to HPISO

Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, 2016-17 vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 213/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.213/Bang/2021 Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Padam Chand Khincha, A.RFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 92C

IT(TP)A No.213/Bang/2021 M/s. Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C

Global E-Business Operations Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 212/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri.P.C.Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “B”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM IT