← All Phrases

“Section 2(24)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(24)(iv)43 judgments

KARNATAKA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2088/BANG/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), MYSORE vs. HAGAMILALDAK GOUTHAMCHAND, MYSORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2087/BANG/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 250

ITA Nos.2087 & 2088/Bang/2024 Hagamlaldak Gouthamchand, Mysore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

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

total amount Rs.947.42 crores i.e. Rs.473.71 crores in the hands of each director holding it as the income under section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. 3.3. The first plank of argument made by ld. AR of the assessee is that income can be charged only if it falls under ... made addition u/s.2(24)(iv) of the Act which is a section for the definition and not the charging section. Only provisions of section 2(24)(iv) of the Act cannot be invoked for making addition. In first appellate proceedings the CIT(A) has sustained the addition by giving

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

therefore, necessary for the assessee to furnish Form10 in order to identify such amount that will not fall within the ambit of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. 9 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.1. Undoubtedly, the present situation of non-filing of Form10 cannot be treated as a culpable negligence

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

therefore, necessary for the assessee to furnish Form10 in order to identify such amount that will not fall within the ambit of Section 2(24)(iv) of the Act. 9 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.1. Undoubtedly, the present situation of non-filing of Form10 cannot be treated as a culpable negligence

INFINITY CARS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT03 CENTRAL MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2369/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarinfinity Cars Private V/S. Principal Commissioner Of Limited, 12/A, 1St Floor, बनाम Income Tax– 03 Central, Lotus Cinema Bldg., Worli Mumbai, Room No. 441, 4 Th S.O. Mumbai - 400 018, Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To Maharashtra C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),Mumbai - 400051, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabci5671H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah,ARFor Respondent: Mr.R.A. Dhyani, (CIT-DR)
Section 153ASection 153CSection 263

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ASHFAQUE AHMED MECCA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3100/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ASHFAQUE AHMED MECCA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3099/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ASHFAQUE AHMED MECCA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3098/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ASHFAQUFE AHMED MECCA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3097/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

MECCA IQBALAHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3096/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

MECCA IQBAL AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3095/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

MECCA IQBAL AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3094/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

MECCA IQBAL AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3093/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ISRAR AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3092/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ISRAR AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3091/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ISRAR AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3090/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

ISRAR AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3089/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

MECCA RAFEEQUE AHMED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA Nos

ITA 3088/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Vinod D. Mudaliar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 2(24)(iv)Section 37(1)

said sum cannot be added as a perquisite in the hands of the assessee Director. The ld.AR submitted that the provisions of section 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv) & 28(iv) of the Act is not applicable as the company has already disallowed the expenditure in its hands. Hence ... both the Company and the assessee, which is contrary to the principle that an amount cannot be taxed twice. iii) The provisions of Sections 2(24)(iv), 17(2)(iv), and 28(iv) of the Act are not applicable since the disallowed expenditure has already been taxed in the hands

Showing 1–20 of 43 · Page 1 of 3