“Section 2(8)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(8)16 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)

paid to the State Electricity Board. 15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the Electricity Act, 2003. Section 2(8) of the Act defines "Captive Generating Plant" to mean a power plant set up by any person to generate electricity primarily

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

In the result, C.O. filed by assessee is\ndismissed as infructuous

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

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

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n“K" BENCH, MUMBAI\nBEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI

SURYA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,LUCKNOW vs. CENTRAL PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 323/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(1)Section 2(8)Section 40A(3)

following grounds: “BECAUSE, (1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of Assessment order under section 2(8) of the Act in the form of 'intimation' under section 143(1) dated 24.12.2021, after observing that I.T.A. No.323/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2020-21 2 "Ground

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

paid to the State Electricity\nBoard.\n15. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the ElectricityAct, 2003. Section 2(8)\nof the Act defines "Captive Generating Plant" to meana power plant set up by any person to\ngenerate electricity primarily for itsown use and includes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH vs. JAMES HOTELS LTD, CHANDIGARH

ITA 552/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: The Said Resolution To Enhance Authorized Share Capital.

For Appellant: Shri R.K. KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT, DR

Section 143(2)Section 269SSection 271D

Company has sufficient authorized capital. Relevant extract of the Company Act, 2013 is re- produced herein below for your reference. “As per Section 2(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 "authorised capital" or "nominal capital" means such capital as is authorised by the memorandum of a company ... more than the authorized share capital. Relevant extract of the Company Act, 2013 is re-produced herein below for your reference As per Section 2(8) of the Companies Act, 2013 "authorised capital" or "nominal capital" means such capital as is authorised by the memorandum of a company

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1012/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

For Appellant: 2. The ld.AR submitted written submissions, relevant part of the same is reprodu

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

section 12A(2) talks about pendency of assessment proceedings, it is relevant to get into the definition of the term 'assessment' in section 2(8) of the Act, wherein it is defined as "assessment includes reassessment". Hence 19 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A] even reassessment proceedings

INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION,PUNE vs. ADDL-JCIT(A)-1 VISAKHAPATNAM, E-ORDER

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 772/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.772/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Indian Medical Association, V The Addl-Jcit(A)-I, Pcb Branch, Niramaya S Visakhapatnam, E-Order. Hospital, Behind Post Office, Chinchwad Station, Pune – 411019. Pan: Aabti0892B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 20/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatnam Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17 Emanating From The Order U/Sec.143(1) Of The Act Dated 02.01.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Exemption U/S 11: The Learned A.O Has Erred In Confirming The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.33,84,440/- As Against Returned Income Of Rs 31,040/- Indian Medical Association [A]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(2)Section 143(1)Section 250

section 12A(2) talks about pendency of assessment proceedings, it is relevant to get into the definition of the term 'assessment' in section 2(8) of the Act, wherein it is defined as "assessment includes reassessment". Hence even reassessment proceedings that were pending would also come under the ambit

ACIT CIRCLE-65(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY PRATAP SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4492/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(8)Section 271(1)(c)

already available in the assessment records as there was no assessment in the case of the assessee within the meaning of Section 2(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and there was no application of mind as the return filed by the assessee for A.Y.2009-10 on 25.07.2009 was only

ACIT CIRCLE-65(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJAY PRATAP SINGH, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 4491/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri R. K. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(8)Section 271(1)(c)

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S ASIAN STAR COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the learned assessing officer is dismissed

ITA 2778/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Asian Star Company Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(3) Room No.803, 8Th Floor, 114-C, Mitta Court, Pratishtha Bhavan, Vs. M.K. Road, Churchgate, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca4856B Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ms. Vaishali More, Ars Revenue By : Smt. Shailja Rai, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT DR

Section 133ASection 143Section 148

benamidars is not found to be established. Further, the acid test for Benami Property is satisfaction as per the definition given in Section 2(8) which states that "any property which is the subject matter of a benami transaction and also includes M/s Asian Star Company Ltd; A.Y.2012-13 the proceedings

MANOHAR MANAK ALLOYS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1159/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

assessment ? The answer, in our opinion, is in the affirmative. It is nevertheless ‗assessment‘. Assessment has been defined in section 2(8) as ‗assessment includes reassessment‘. Section 143, as a whole, is a provision regarding assessment. The modalities and procedure for assessment have been provided for in sub- section

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued.” 7.6 The CIT(A), has rightly observed that Section 2(8) of the Act defines assessment to include Re-assessment". Moreover, the Act does not lay down separate & distinct procedures for assessment of a return

ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 526 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013

For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

submitted that assessment included re-assessment as was evident from 2013:DHC:158-DB ITA Nos.523/2012, 524/2012, 525/2012 & 526/2012 Page 4 of 7 Section 2(8) of the said Act. Therefore, whether the assessment was an original assessment or as a part of a re-assessment, it would not make

ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 525 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013

For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

ASSOCIATIONOF CORPORATIONS & APEX SOCIETIS & HANDLOOMS vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 524 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013

For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)

ASSOCIATION OF CORPORATION & APEX SOCIETIES OF HANDLOOMS vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX

Appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above

ITA - 523 / 2012HC Delhi10 Jan 2013

For Appellant: Mr Rajat Navet and Mr Kushagra Pandit, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(8)