← All Phrases

“Section 2(30)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 2(30) is Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (37 ITR 66), cited in 206 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(30)

Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
37 ITR 66 · 1959 · Supreme Court
206
citing judgments

Expenditure is defined as money paid out or away, which is gone irretrievably. To be deductible under Section 37(1), expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business, not capital or personal, and not fall under specific provisions of Sections 30 to 36, often justifiable on grounds of commercial expediency.

Shri Mohd. Ayub v. ITO
346 ITR 30 · 2012 · Reported
98
citing judgments

Each assessment year is an independent unit for income-tax purposes, requiring the issuance of a separate notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for a valid reassessment. Failure to issue such separate notices renders the assessment invalid.

Lord Thankerton in Hughes v. Bank of New Zealand
6 ITR 636 · 1938 · Reported
44
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business is deductible, even if it is unremunerative or does not yield an immediate profit. The absence of a corresponding receipt does not negate the deductibility of such an expense.

CIT v. HDFC Bank
104 Taxmann.com 97 · 2019 · High Court
22
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not warranted merely because an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds to make investments that yield exempt income. No disallowance is called for if no expenditure is found to have been incurred for earning exempt income.

FNF India Private Limited v. ACIT
194 ITD 463 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure, when described in sections 30 to 36 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is allowable as business expenditure, as indicated by the explanatory memorandum to Finance Act No. 2, 2014.

Shantilal Godawat & Others v. ACIT
30 DTR 413 · 2009 · Reported
14
citing judgments

An assessment order served beyond the prescribed period of limitation is barred by limitation and is considered non-est in law.

153C of the Act. (iii) CIT v. Sohan Lal Sewa Ram Jaggi
222 CTR 412 · 2009 · High Court
11
citing judgments

An assessee cannot challenge the jurisdiction of an assessing officer after the expiry of one month from the date of service of notice, unless the objection is raised within 30 days of the notice under section 124(3)(a).

Judgments citing Section 2(30)

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

render services outside India. They do not render services from India or in India. BAP are also ‘non resident’s under section 2(30) read with section 6 of the Act. Hence, no tax was deducted at source in respect of the commission paid to these non residents

Asstt. CIT, Circle-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Reliance Corporatio It Park Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1893/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 1893 & 1894/Mum/2020 (A.Ys: 2013-14 & 2014-15) Acit, Circle -3(3)(1) Vs. M/S Reliance Room No. 609, 6Th Corporate It Park Ltd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Bldg. No. 45, Ttc Indl. Mk Road, Mumbai – Area, Thane-Belapur 400 020. Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai – 400701. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcd7169H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mrs.Mamta Bansal. Cit Dr Respondent By : Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .Ar Date Of Hearing 24.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Income Tax Act.

For Appellant: Mrs.Mamta Bansal. CIT DRFor Respondent: Mr. Nimesh Vora.C A .AR
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92

point.” 24. The only hindrance to the claim of the assessee, which is also the lynchpin of the case of the Revenue, is Section 2(30) of the MV Act, which defines ownership as follows: - ““owner” means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such ... favour of the Revenue. 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