← All Phrases

“Section 12(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 12Section 12(2)41 judgments

RADHESHYAM AGARWAL,BHOPAL vs. THE PCIT, CENTRAL, BHOPAL , BHOPAL

ITA 417/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 253Section 263

{"clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौर न्यायपीठ, इंदौर\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\nINDORE BENCH, INDORE\nBEFORE SHRI B.M

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(2), NEW DELHI, I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. BIRD WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2779/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 80I

definition of `establishment' in the CLRAA takes in\nits fold purely private undertakings...".Concerns about privatization\nare, therefore, unfounded.\n\n(ix) Under Section 12(2) of the AAI Act, AAI is obliged to provide air\ntraffic service and air transport service at the airport. DIAL admits\nthat

NV PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 1418/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 1418/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nN V Projects Private Limited\nGround Floor, Block D\nS. No. 30/3, 31/1 & 2A\nWeikfield IT Citi Info Park\nViman Nagar\nPune - 411041\n[PAN: AACCD2669P]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 1(2)(2),\nMumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nI.T.A. No. 1025/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDeputy Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 36(1)(iii)

absence of a suggestion of fraud this is not relevant at all for giving effect to\nthe provisions of section 12(2) of the Income tax Act. Most commercial transactions\nare entered into for the mutual benefit of both sides, or at any rate each side hopes to\ngain something ... business of the company\nand was made on the ground of commercial expediency. It therefore falls within the\npurview of section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 before its amendment in 1939.”\n9. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set at rest the allegations made

DCIT-5(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. N V PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 1025/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT\n&\nSHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nI.T.A. No. 1418/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nN V Projects Private Limited\nGround Floor, Block D\nS. No. 30/3, 31/1 & 2A\nWeikfield IT Citi Info Park\nViman Nagar\nPune - 411041\n[PAN: AACCD2669P]\nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\nVs\nDeputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax, Circle 1(2)(2),\nMumbai\nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\nI.T.A. No. 1025/Mum/2025\nAssessment Year: 2017-18\nDeputy Commissioner

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT, D/R
Section 36(1)(iii)

absence of a suggestion of fraud this is not relevant at all for giving effect to\nthe provisions of section 12(2) of the Income tax Act. Most commercial transactions\nare entered into for the mutual benefit of both sides, or at any rate each side hopes to\ngain something ... business of the company\nand was made on the ground of commercial expediency. It therefore falls within the\npurview of section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 before its amendment in 1939.”\n9. 2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has set at rest the allegations made

SHRI JAGDISHBHAI GORDHANBHAI DOABARIYA ,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

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

ITA 142/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.142/Rjt/2023 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jagdishbhai Gordhanbhai Dobariya The Pr.Cit-1 बनाम “Ramdev”2, Jivnath Park,B/H. Panchvati Aayakar Bhavan, Race Hall,Panchvati Main Road,Nr.Gandhi Vs. Course Ring Road, School,Rajkot 360 001 Rajkot. Pan : Abrpd8654R (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, ld.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 57

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, राजकोट "यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN

SIVA SUNDARI NARISIKSHASRAM AND ANTE NATAL CLINIC,SILCHAR vs. ITO(EXEMPTION), WARD-2(3), GUWAHATI

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 11Section 12A(1)Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

registration under new provisions, as can be made only after 01.04.2021, as per amendment made by TOLA. Further, as per main provisions of section 12(2), provisions of sections 11 and 12 shall be applicable from the assessment year following the financial year in which such application for registration

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

ITA 417/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 14Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(iv)

indirect with the income which she earned from the fixed deposit and that she was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 12(2). The High Court held that if an assessee had no option except to incur an expenditure in order to make the earning of an income ... that option is compulsory and any expenditure incurred by reason of the exercise of that option would come within the ambit of section 12(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act but where the option has no connection with the carrying on of the business or the earning

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

ITA 416/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 14Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(2)(iv)

indirect with the income which she earned from the fixed deposit and that she was not entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 12(2). The High Court held that if an assessee had no option except to incur an expenditure in order to make the earning of an income ... that option is compulsory and any expenditure incurred by reason of the exercise of that option would come within the ambit of section 12(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act but where the option has no connection with the carrying on of the business or the earning

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

ITA 415/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18
Section 14ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

indirect with\nthe income which she earned from the fixed deposit and that she was not entitled to the deduction\nclaimed under Section 12(2). The High Court held that if an assessee had no option except to incur\nan expenditure in order to make the earning of an income ... nthat option is compulsory and any expenditure incurred by reason of the exercise of that option would\ncome within the ambit of section 12(2) of the Indian Income-Tax Act but where the option has no\nconnection with the carrying on of the business or the earning

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

view was taken by this court in Eastern Investments Ltd. v/s CIT (1951) 20 ITR 14 (SC) where interpreting the corresponding provision in section 12(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in the same terms as Section 57(1), Bose J speaking on behalf

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

ITA 34/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153ASection 24

view was taken by this court in Eastern Investments\nLtd. v/s CIT (1951) 20 ITR 14 (SC) where interpreting the corresponding\nprovision in section 12(2) of the Indian IT Act, 1922, which was ipsissima verba in\nthe same terms as Section 57(1), Bose J speaking on behalf

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3936/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2018-19
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

nfor the purpose of development of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, does not\nindicate any supervision or control by the State Government.\n\n• Section 12(2) of the Act confers upon the assessee powers of a Regional Planning\nBoard constituted u/s 4 of the MRTP Act for revision of Regional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3795/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

assessee for the purpose of development of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, does not indicate any supervision or control by the State Government. ● Section 12(2) of the Act confers upon the assessee powers of a Regional Planning Board constituted u/s 4 of the MRTP Act for revision of Regional Plan

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

ITA 3794/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

assessee for the purpose of development of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, does not indicate any supervision or control by the State Government. ● Section 12(2) of the Act confers upon the assessee powers of a Regional Planning Board constituted u/s 4 of the MRTP Act for revision of Regional Plan

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3791/MUM/2023[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(15)

assessee\nfor the purpose of development of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, does not\nindicate any supervision or control by the State Government.\n• Section 12(2) of the Act confers upon the assessee powers of a Regional Planning\nBoard constituted u/s 4 of the MRTP Act for revision of Regional

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BALLARI, BALLARI vs. MS AL BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST, BALLARI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the\nappeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1483/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 164(2)

ntreated as income derived from the property, thereby section\n11(1)(a) and (b) would apply to such contributions. Further, as\nper section 12(2), the value of any services to any person\nreferred in section 13(3) shall not be eligible for deduction.\nSection 12A deals with making application

AL-BADAR EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,KALABURAGI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE, BELLARY

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are allowed and the\nappeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1410/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Hanchal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Neha Sahay, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(1)Section 164(2)

ntreated as income derived from the property, thereby section\n11(1)(a) and (b) would apply to such contributions. Further, as\nper section 12(2), the value of any services to any person\nreferred in section 13(3) shall not be eligible for deduction.\nSection 12A deals with making application

M/S. OM SHANTI HOUSING ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 20(2)(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the assesse stands allowed

ITA 672/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 143Section 44A

which is the notice of situation or change of situation of registered office pursuance to section 146 of the Companies Act 1956/ section 12(2)&4 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Rule 25 and 27 of the companies (incorporation) Rules 2014 On verification of the same it is noticed

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

ITA 951/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nDepartment by
Section 10Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI

DCIT(EXEMPTION), CIRCLE 1(1) KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. HOOGHLY RIVER BRIDGE COMMISSIONER, KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are partly allowed

ITA 1148/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. Nos.1147 & 1148/Kol/2024 Assessment Years: 2012-11 & 2013-14

Section 11Section 111Section 12ASection 250

grant of registration to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel, in this AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14 respect, has relied upon the proviso to section 12(2) of the Act (as it was on the statute at the time of registration of the assessee organisation in the year 2019, which, however ... other appellate authorities, which could not be decided during the assessment proceedings. However, in the relevant statutory provisions as per the proviso to section 12(2) of the Act, it has been specifically written that the benefit of exemption can be granted for the preceding year, if on the date

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3