← All Phrases

“Section 2(30)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(30)25 judgments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5143/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

generating company" means any company or body corporate or association or body of individuals, which owns or operates or maintains a generating station. Section 2(30) of the Electricity Act defines "generating station" or “station” to mean any station for generating electricity, including any building and plant with step

DCIT-5(2)(1),MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. JSW STEEL COATED PRODUCTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5142/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K

ADITYA BIRLA NUVO LTD (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH GRASIM INDUSTRIES LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-1(4) EARLIER WITH ACIT(LTU) 1, MUMBAI

ITA 563/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &\nSMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA No.563/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)\nAditya BirlaNuvo Ltd. Vs. Dy. CIT, Central Circle – 1(4)\n(Since Amalgamated with\nGrasim Industries Limited)\nA2 Aditya Birla Centre, S. K.\nAhire Marg, Worli, Mumbai\nEarlier with Asst. CIT(LTU) 1\nRoom No. 902, Old CGO\nBuilding, 9th Floor, M. K. Road,\nMumbai-400 020\nPAN/GIR No.AAACI1747H\n(Appellant) .. (Respondent)\nITA No.1885/Mum/2018\n(Assessment Year :2013-14)

Section 255(4)Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘K’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. ZF WIND POWER COIMBATORE PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

ITA 246/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.Ο No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.08.2025 आदेश /O R D Er Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, CA &For Respondent: Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, COIMBATORE, COIMBATORE vs. ZF WIND POWER COIMBATORE PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

ITA 245/CHNY/2025[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 245 & 246/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years:2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O No.21/Chny/2025 [In I.T.A. No.245/Chny/2025] The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Corporate Circle 1, Coimbatore Vs. Zf Wind Power Coimbatore Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.3, Hi Tech Engineering & Service Sector Sez, Annur Road, Village Kittampalayam & Karumathampatty, Coimbatore – 641 659. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By निर्धारिती की ओर से/Assessee By सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement Pan: Aabch 8089G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross Objector) : Shri P.K. Senthil Kumar, Addl.Cit : Shri Ashik Shah, Ca & Ms. Soundariya, Ca : 15.07.2025 : 01.08.2025 आदेश /Order Per George George K: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Two Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 Both Dated 28.11.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter The 'Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2012-13 & 2013-14. The Assessee Has Also Filed Cross Objection For

Section 143(2)Section 144C(4)Section 250Section 92C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'डी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री जॉर्ज जॉर्ज के, उपाध्यक्ष

UCWEB MOBILE PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INOCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, GURGAON

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

ITA 3945/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (Vice President), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 253(1)(d)Section 43(3)

holder has no rights whatsoever as were available to the equity shareholders. The benefits and objections associated with both the instruments are different. Section 2(30) of the Companies Act, 2013 provides the definition of “debenture” which is as under:- “debenture include debenture stock, bonds or any other instrument

NATEMS SOLAR POWER PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 16(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 140/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234Section 234A

nature of a loan or borrowing for the company which issues debentures. Therefore, from the definition of debentures, as per section 2(30) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the nature of instrument, there is no dispute of whatsoever with regard to fact that, the nature of the transaction

MITESH VIJAY GULATI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INT. TAX WARD-2(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4227/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 3Section 6(1)Section 6(1)(c)

accordingly the citizen of India would be considered as non-resident in India as per the provisions of Section 6(1)(c) rws section 2(30) of the Act. However, as per details available with this office and as discussed herein above, the assessee was outside India for the purpose

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PVT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4102/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Br Baskaranshri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika H. Pande, Sr. DR
Section 250

case are reproduced as under; “26. We do not find merit in the Revenue’s argument for more than one reason: (i) Section 2(30) is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ... ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act; Section 2(30) of the MV Act must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 51 of the MV Act, which were referred

MRIDULA JHA JENA,MUMBAI vs. INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD, 3(1)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4844/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra/Ms. SnigdhaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 270ASection 5(2)Section 9(1)(ii)

employment outside India, then he or she will become resident only if his or her stay in India is more than 182 days. Section 2(30) of the Act defines "non-resident" as a person who is not a resident. Therefore the assessee who has left India during the previous

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 1112/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Dec 2024AY 2018-19
For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 5

words "sixty days", occurring therein, the words "one hundred and eighty-two days" had been substituted; The term 'non-resident' is defined in section 2(30) to mean "a person who is not a resident. . . The Explanation to this sub-section provides that a citizen of India who leaves India

CHAMBAL FERTILISERS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED,KOTA GADEPAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SAVINA-UDAIPUR

ITA 694/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Oct 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Jhanwar, Adv. & Shri Mukesh SoniFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 195Section 263Section 90

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

RAOUL THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1262/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K. GopalFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

herein, has purchased them from those banks, being initial allottees. The debentures were not listed/traded in any of the stock exchanges. As per Section 2(30) of Companies Act, 2013 "debenture" includes debenture stock, bonds, or any other instrument of a company evidencing a debt, whether constituting a charge

KHUSHAAL C. THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3679/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

herein, has purchased them from those banks, being initial allottees. The debentures were not listed/traded in any of the stock exchanges. As per Section 2(30) of Companies Act, 2013 “debenture” includes debenture stock, bonds, or any 10 Khushaal C. Thackersey other instrument of a company evidencing a debt, whether

RAOUL S. THACKERSEY,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 12(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3678/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Justice (Rtd.) C.V. Bhadang () & Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 54ESection 54F

herein, has purchased them from those banks, being initial allottees. The debentures were not listed/traded in any of the stock exchanges. As per Section 2(30) of Companies Act, 2013 “debenture” includes debenture stock, bonds, or any other instrument of a company evidencing a debt, whether constituting a charge

NTT GLOBAL DATA CENTERS & CLOUD INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (ERSTWHILE NETMAGIC IT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DCIT-10 (3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the issue under consideration is remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer for statistical purpose

ITA 2784/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blentt Global Data Centers & Cloud V. National E-Assessment Centre Infrastructure India Private Limited {Now Known As National {Erstwhile Netmagic It Services Faceless Appeal Centre} Private Limited} Delhi 7Th Floor, Hiranandani Business Park Sakinaka S.O., Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aaccn2366D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Shri Arpit Doshi & Ms. Payal Mehta Department Represented By : Shri S. Srinivasu

Section 37(1)

case are reproduced as under; “26. We do not find merit in the Revenue’s argument for more than one reason: (i) Section 2(30) is a deeming provision that creates a legal fiction of ownership in favour of lessee only for the purpose of the MV Act. It defines ... ownership in general. Perhaps, the repository of a general statement of law on ownership may be the Sale of Goods Act; Section 2(30) of the MV Act must be read in consonance with sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 51 of the MV Act, which were referred

DY CIT 11 (3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TOTAL OIL INDIA PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 6997/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy&F Shri Amarjit Singhdy. Commissioner Of Vs. Total Oil India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-11(3)(1) 3Rd Floor, The Leela Room No. 204, Aayakar Galleria, Bhavan, M.K.Road, Andheri (E) Marine Lines Mumbai 400 059 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaace2175M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Ajay Kumar Sharma
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

none else. 49. The term "non-resident" means a person who is not a resident as per section 2(30) of the Income Tax Act and for the purposes of sections 92, 93 and 168, includes a person who is not ordinarily a resident within the meaning of clause

SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 51/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that

SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA,,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTL. TAXN., RAJKOT

In the result, Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 50/RJT/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT DR
Section 148Section 2(30)Section 68Section 69

being unexplained cash credits. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the assessee is a non- resident as defined under Section 2(30) of the Act and the “non-resident” status of the assessee has not been disputed by the Assessing Officer. Further, the assessee submitted that

DCIT 3(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S NHDC LTD, BHOPAL

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 315/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri B.M. Biyani (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 2(30)Section 263Section 62Section 79Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

Section 2(30) — 25 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax