← All Phrases

“Section 2(84)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(84)14 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(84) is Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (113 ITR 84), cited in 245 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(84)

Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
113 ITR 84 · 1978 · Supreme Court
245
citing judgments

The expression "attributable to" is wider in scope and import than the expression "derived from" when interpreting provisions related to profits and gains from a business or industrial undertaking. The legislature's deliberate use of these distinct phrases indicates a nuanced intent regarding the directness of the nexus between income and the source.

Gujarat Gas Company Ltd. v. JCIT
245 ITR 84 · 2000 · High Court
99
citing judgments

The assessed income can be lower than the returned income. Authorities are required to assist assessees in correcting over-assessments, even if it means reducing the income below the returned figure.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain v. ACIT Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi
84 Taxmann.com 257 · 2017 · High Court
62
citing judgments

The assessment can apply the peak credit theory for additions related to unexplained credits or entries. Furthermore, assessment proceedings are not vitiated merely because the Department proceeded under an incorrect section if material existed to justify the assessment under a proper provision like section 148.

Madras Machine Tools Manufacturers Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 119 · 1975 · High Court
25
citing judgments

An 'undertaking' is distinct from the 'legal entity' that owns it, meaning tax benefits related to an undertaking must be assessed on a per-undertaking basis, not for the company in general, especially when a company operates multiple undertakings.

R 222 (SC) P.H. Dwivecha vs. CIT Page 84 of 155 53 ITR 261 (SC) Kettlewell Bullen& Co. Ltd. v. CIT
351 ITR 110 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The nature and character of a receipt, whether it is of a capital or revenue nature, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly the purpose for which the payment was made.

Judgments citing Section 2(84)

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

reiterates the same OECD commentary. Coordinate Bench also took note of the domestic legislation, more particularly definition of shares given in section 2(84) of the Companies Act, 2013 to differentiate between rights entitlement and shares. Under the domestic law, we also refer to section 2

Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2103/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

reiterates the same OECD commentary. Coordinate Bench also took note of the domestic legislation, more particularly definition of shares given in section 2(84) of the Companies Act, 2013 to differentiate between rights entitlement and shares. Under the domestic law, we also refer to section 2