“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)

ACIT (TDS -2(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 12/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit (Tds)-2(2), Sula Vineyards Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 322, Mtnl Office, 901, Hubtown Solaries, N.S. Cumballa Hill, Vs. Phadke Marg, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400029. Pan No. Aabcn 7126 Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Niraj Singh, Ar Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Niraj Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 201(1)

share computed by the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section the Merchant Banker without appreciating that section 17(2)(vi) r.w. Rule 3(8) provides for adopting FMV of the shares 17(2)(vi) r.w. Rule 3(8) provides for adopting FMV 17 ... Rajeev Sawant paid ₹ 62 lakh to the company for the 40,00 company for the 40,000 shares. 2.1 As per the section 17(2)(vi) of the As per the section 17(2)(vi) of the Act the value of any the value of any specified security allotted

DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 5227/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ltu, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3811/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Asst CIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3597/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

DCIT (Ltu) 1, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2815/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2493/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 3267/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8120/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT (Ltu), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 8084/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 7511/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri F.V. Irani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, DR

Section 801BSection 801CSection 80ISection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM

Sunshine Communiction P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, he appeal filed by the assesse is partly allowed

ITA 2745/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadales Rifaur M/S Sunshine Vs. Acit, Cc-5(4), Communication Pvt Ltd, Parimal Chambers, Thar & Co, 203, Capri Lalbaug, Bldg, Opp Hdil Towers Mumbai-400012. Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E) Mumbai - 400051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs4276L Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Nimesh Thar.Ar Respondent By : Shri S.Anbuselvam.Dr Date Of Hearing 14.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Thar.ARFor Respondent: Shri S.Anbuselvam.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244ASection 43B

situation, at the most such facility extended by the company to the directors can be treated as perquisites under the provisions of section 17(2) of the Act which can be brought to tax in India hands of the director as part of salary. 20.6 It is also interesting

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5318/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2011-12

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(4), Mumbai vs. Samruddhi Cement Limited (Since Amalgamated Into M/S.Ultratech Cement Limited), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4835/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-1(2)(2), New Delhi vs. Datamine International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6383/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6383/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Datamine International Ltd., International Taxation, (Now Cae Datamine International Circle-1(2)(2), Ltd.), A-41, Ground Floor, Mohan New Delhi Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacd7600A Assessee By : Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, Ar Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.11.2021

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: None

Section 9(1)(vi)

explanation 6 to section 9(l)(vi) introduced in 2012 w.r.e.f. 1976 and Western Coalfields in the context of retrospective amendment to section 17(2)(ii) to highlight the impossibility of discharging withholding obligation. Holds that person mentioned in section 195 cannot be expected to do the impossible, namely

Bharti Infratel Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 2(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 425/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati [CIT] – DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 37Section 37(1)

Lalita, Alwar vs. ITO Ward - 42(4), Delhi

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

ITA 4307/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2012-13 Lalita, Vs. Ito, C/O K.L. Datta & Company, Ward 42(4), Vashishtha Plaza 2, Delhi. Manu Marg, Alwar, Rajasthan. Pan: Adgpl2634Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 150Section 150(1)Section 150(2)Section 56Section 57

exemptions from the salary income. Submissions put-forth by the assessee in this regard during the course of appellate proceedings, have been perused. Section 17(2) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, provides that any reimbursement against medical expenses to an employee by an employer

Besto Electronics P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 254/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri B.K. Anand, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 263Section 37Section 38

deducted at source by the assessee on account of perquisite to the director by way of rent-free accommodation, within the meaning of section 17(2) of Income Tax Act read with section 192 of Income Tax Act; is not available on the records. Under Section 17(2) of Income

Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing) Loesche India Pvt. Ltd., Acit, M–38/1, International Business Vs. Centre, Middle Circle, Circle : 15 (2), Connaught Place, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 049. Pan: Aaacl0980H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D. Subramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Paul, [CIT]–DR

Section 143(3)Section 17(2)Section 37(1)

claim of the assessee that these payments were in the nature of perquisites to the employees as contemplated under sub-clause (iv) of section 17(2) of the IT Act, according to which any sum paid by the employer in respect of any obligation which, but for such payment, would ... assessee, shall be included in perquisites. However, in view of proviso (iii) & (iv) appended to this section clearly prohibit the applicability of section 17(2) in certain eventualities as contained in these provisions. In view of attending facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of law pointed above

Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3285/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Mr. Abhisar Sharma, Vs Dcit, B-602, Plot No.F-2, Circle-64(1), The Crescent, B-Block, Room No.314, Sector-50, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, Noida. Civic Centre, New Delhi. Pan: Aigps3840N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri J.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30Th March, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit-22, Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 22Nd July, 2005 Declaring Income Of Rs.9,00,355/-. The Assessee In The Return Of Income Had Declared Income From Salary At Rs.9,81,964/- & Loss From House Property At Rs.81,609/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act On 4Th July, 2006 At The Same Income. Subsequently, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Dated 27Th March, 2012 After Obtaining Prior Approval Of The Addl. Cit, Range-7, New Delhi, Vide His Letter No.526 Dated 27Th March, 2012. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 147/143(3) On 28Th March, 2013, Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.11,03,270/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.9,00,355/- Wherein He Made The Following Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17Section 17(2)Section 263Section 68Section 69C

regarding such perquisite from his employer i.e. M/s NDTV Ltd. There is no provision in the IT Act to tax “unexplained perquisite” under section 17(2) for foreign visit which had not been shown in Form 12BA/Form 16 from employer and assessee could not submit any evidence of receiving ... provision in the Act to treat the ESOPs as perquisites in the hands of the assessee. He submitted that the amendment in section 17(2)(vi) of the Act was w.e.f. 01.04.2010. He submitted that prior to such amendment ESOPs were treated as capital receipts in the hands of recipient