← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(vi)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(vi)30 judgments

JAG MOHAN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 18, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 7055/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं.7055/धिल्ली/2017(नि.व. 2014-15) Jag Mohan, 354, Tarun Enclave, Pitampura, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant Delhi 110034 Pan Ahdpm-3671-M बिाम Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent Circle-18, New Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/ Appellant By : S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, Chartered Accountants & Ms. Chandrima Choudhary, Advocate प्रधिवािीद्वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Namita Khurana Cit-Dr & Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date Of Hearing : 10/10/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 18/09/2017, For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. A Search & Seizure Operation U/S.132 Of The Income Was Conducted On 26.08.2013 In The Case Of Mohan India Group. The Assessee Is One Of The Directors Of Mohan India Group & The Assessee Was Also Covered Under Said Search. During

For Appellant: S/Shri Raghav Sharma, Mohit Gupta, CharteredFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “सी”, धिल्ली श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याविक सदस्य एिं श्री एम. बालगणेश, लेखाकार सदस्य के समक्ष

SMT. URMILA DHELIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 4259/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kapadia, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(vi)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Appellant on re-development would be in the nature of capital receipt and the same is not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi);\n(ii) the Appellant received 6,20,500/- being 10% of the Corpus Money during the previous year as advance which was refundable ... caused to her on redevelopment would be in the nature of capital receipt and the same is not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi). The ld.CIT(A) however, rejected the contentions of the assessee stating that it was evident that she had engaged the builders to develop

ISHWAR VITHAL NAVADIA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(2)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground No.3 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 297/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.297/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Ishwar Vithal Navadia Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1), बनाम/ 201, Jaltarang Apartment, Surat, Room No.416, Aaykar Vs. Laxmi Nagar Society, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Katargam, Surat-395 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakpn 1866 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(24)(vi)Section 250

cause d to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount would be in nature of capital receipt simplicitor not includible in income as per section 2(24)(vi). Hence, we direct the assessing officer to treat such receipt as capital receipt. In the result, ground No.3 of the appeal is allowed

MILAN SAINI,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2 , GURGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2335/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Milan Saini, Vs. Dcit, 37, Centrum Plaza, Dlf Golf Circle-2. Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon Gurgaon (Haryana) Pan: Braps1366P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17Section 250(6)Section 28

under section 2(24) unless it is chargeable to tax as capital gains under section 45. It is for this reason that under section 2(24)(vi) that the Legislature has expressly stated, inter alia, that income shall include any capital gains chargeable under section 45. Under section 2(24 ... gains whether chargeable under section 45 or not, would come within the definition of the word "income" under section 2(24). Further, under section 2(24)(vi), the Legislature has not stopped with the words "any capital gains". On the contrary, the Legislature has advisedly stated that only capital gains

MOHAMMED FAKHRE ALAM SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-52, MUMBAI

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

ITA 6513/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2016-17 Mohammed Fakhre Alam The Assessing Officer, Shaikh, Ward-17(2)(3), New Usmaniya Washing, Vs. Mumbai. Noor Mansion, 111, Janjikar Street, Crawford Market, Mumbai-400003. Pan : Bhops3293R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana
Section 54FSection 56(2)(vii)

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMABI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 418/MUM/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

KRISHNAKANT SHARMA (LH OF LATE VIMALADEVI SHARMA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 23(3)(5), MUMBAI

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

ITA 417/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 147Section 250

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, 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

specific provisions under the Income Tax Act which provide that certain capital receipts can also be considered as income, such as under section 2 (24)(vi) which covers "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", but right now we are confined to normal connotations of the expression 'income'. Howsoever liberal ... nature of income [except in a situations in which capital receipts are specifically included in the definition of income such as under section 2(24)(vi)], and unless it is in nature of income, it cannot be considered for taxation under section 28(iv). The reference to benefits which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 121/NAG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 95/NAG/2018[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 237/NAG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe

definition. It cannot be disputed that income will not in its normal meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in section 2(24)(vi). In such a case, capital gains chargeable to tax under section 45 are, defined to be income. The amounts received on issue

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BUHARI HOLDINGS PRIVAE LIMITED, CHENNAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/CHNY/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.325/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2010-2011) The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Buhari Holdings Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax, No.4, Buhari Towers, Corporate Circle 1(2) Moores Road, Chennai. Chennai 600 006. [Pan Aaacb 2679M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Addl Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri. G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Addl CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 28

specific provisions under the Income Tax Act which provide hat certain capital receipts can also be considered as income, such as under section 2 (24)(vi) of the Act which covers "any capital gains chargeable under section 45", but right now we are confined to normal connotations of the expression ... nature of income [except in a situations in which capital receipts are specifically included in the definition of income such as under section 2(24)(vi)], and unless it is in nature of income, it cannot be considered for taxation under section 28(iv). The reference to benefit which

LATE CHITRA CHAKOLA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1605/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Late Chitra Chakala Ito 24(1)(4) 102, Brighton Towers, 102, Brighton Towers, Lokhandwala Complex, Vs. Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Andheri (West), Mumbai- 400053. Mumbai- 400053. Pan: Aabpc5032H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Satish Mody, A.R. Revenue By : Shri R. R. Makwana- Sr. D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana- SR. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce Para

MILDRED PONNOTH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAX)-3(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1802/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: MS.KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234A

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

RAJESH RAMESH RANGANEKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2157/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Biyani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

NALNI SANJEEV NADKARNI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

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

ITA 1981/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12
Section 147Section 234BSection 274

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat\nowners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated\nas capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of\nthe Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this\nregard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

DCIT-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. JAYMALA INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dism

ITA 2719/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Ankush Kapoor, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 68

normal meaning disputed that income will not in its normal meaning include capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section 2(24) (vi) of capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section 2(24) (vi) of capital receipts unless it is so specified, as in Section ... gains under Section 45. It is for this reason tax as capital gains under Section 45. It is for this reason that under section 2(24)(vi) that the Legislature has that under section 2(24)(vi) that the Legislature has expressly stated, inter alia, that income shall include

MR.P.C.JOSE,,COCHIN vs. DCIT, COCHIN

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

UPINDER KAUR KHALSA RAO,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3670/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhat, CAFor Respondent: 27.02.2024
Section 148Section 2(24)

corpus fund towards hardship caused to flat owners on redevelopment, impugned amount has to be treated as capital receipt simplicitor which as per Section 2(24)(vi) of the Act is not taxable as income of the assessee. In this regard, we find it profitable to reproduce para

KUNNAMA V BALAKRISHNA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 23(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2577/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Smt. Kunnama V Balakrishna बिधम/ Ito-23(2)(2) 1St Floor, Matru Mandir, C12/96, Mig Colony, Vs. Kalanagar, Bandra East, Grant Road, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400007. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaepb0191M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29/11/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/12/2023 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. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 27.05.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. None Appeared For The Assessee, Despite The Fact That The Appeal Has Been Fixed For Hearing On Previous Five (5) Occasions. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.25,21,508/- Made By Ao By Treating The Hardship Compensation Fund As “Dividend Income” Received From The Residential Society.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra (Sr. AR)
Section 147

income howsoever wide and exhaustive, take into account only such capital receipts are specifically taxable under the provisions of the Income tax Act. Section 2(24)(vi) provides that income includes “any capital gains chargeable under section 45”, and, thus, it is clear that a capital receipt simplicitor cannot

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2