← All Phrases

“Section 2(17)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(17)63 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(17) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(17)

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

State Lotteries & Ors. (2001) 249 ITR 186 and Ahmedabad Stamp Vendors Association v. Union of India
257 ITR 202 · 2002 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Supplementary commission forional or extra services does not fall within the ambit of Section 194H of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This may affect the applicability of certificates issued under Section 197.

CIT v. Infosys Technologies Ltd.
297 ITR 167 · 2008 · Supreme Court
115
citing judgments

Allotment of shares to employees under an Employee Stock Option Plan (ESOP) before April 1, 2000, is not a taxable perquisite if the benefit's value is unascertainable at the time of option exercise due to conditions like a lock-in period.

CIT v. Nagpur Hotel Owners Association
247 ITR 201 · 2001 · Supreme Court
112
citing judgments

While there is no statutory time limit for filing Form 10 to claim exemption for income accumulation under Section 11(2), it must be furnished before the completion of assessment proceedings for the Assessing Officer to grant the exemption.

Chennai Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. ITO
148 Taxmann.com 17 · High Court
100
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society on its funds deposited with banks is considered business income, making it eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT
325 ITR 422 · 2010 · Supreme Court
72
citing judgments

Forfeited advance money received for the transfer of a capital asset is not taxable as revenue receipt. Such forfeiture pertains to a capital receipt directly related to the potential sale of a capital asset.

ACIT v. Bharat V.Patel
92 Taxmann.com 336 · 2018 · Reported
60
citing judgments

An assessee cannot be subjected to tax in the absence of a specific provision allowing for such taxation.

Alapati Venkataramiah v. CIT
57 ITR 185 · 1965 · Supreme Court
53
citing judgments

A transfer of an immovable asset for capital gains purposes requires an effective conveyance through a registered sale deed to pass title. Prior to the amendment introducing Section 2(47)(v), transactions involving mere execution of documents or granting possession without registration were not considered complete transfers for tax.

Judgments citing Section 2(17)

Asstt. Commisssioner of Income Tax (It) -3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kuwait Investment Authority, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Farrokh Irani, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), 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)

operative society or association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such cooperative society or association. Section 2(17) defines "distribution licensee" to mean a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply. "Distribution

Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd (Since Amalgamated With Grasim Industries Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(4) Earlier With ACIT(Ltu) 1, Mumbai

In the result, theappeals filed by the assessee and revenue are partly

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

Bench: The Hon’Bleunder Section 255(4) Of The Act. The Points Of Difference Were Thereafter Referred To The Hon’Blefor Resolution. The Hon’Blehas Now Rendered His Detailed Opinion & The Appeals Have Been Placed Before Us To Pass The Consequential

Section 255(4)Section 80

operative society or association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such cooperative society or association. Section 2(17) defines "distribution licensee" to mean a licensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity to the consumers in his area of supply. "Distribution

Linklaters LLP, London vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle (3)(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1222/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Linklaters Llp Assistant Commissioner Of C/O. Deloitte Haskins & Sells Income Tax (International Llp, Tower 3, 27-32 Floor, One Taxation) - 3(1)(2), International Centre, Mumbai Elphinstone Mill Compound, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone (West), Mumbai – 400 013. (Pan: Aabcl5182G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Revenue : Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144C(5)Section 9Section 9(1)Section 9(1)(vii)

proceedings, it is noted that assessee is a limited liability partnership incorporated under the laws of United Kingdom. According to it, as per section 2(17) of the Act, the status claimed by it that of a company. assessee provides legal services to various clients all over the world, including

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

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

ITA 1499/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company‟. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian company‟ and the company in which the public are „substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the „company‟ has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

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

ITA 1498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company‟. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian company‟ and the company in which the public are „substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the „company‟ has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1497/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1496/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Canara Bank (Erstwhile Syndicate Bank), Bangalore

ITA 1495/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. NFAC, CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company‟. The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian company‟ and the company in which the public are „substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the „company‟ has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because

DCIT, Circle 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Aia Engineering Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 565/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 1. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad – 382 415 2. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 2(17)Section 250

that Vega UAE is duly incorporated as a body corporate under the law of a country outside India which is a requirement of Section 2(17) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, Vega UAE has to be accepted as a company within the definition of Section 2(17

Aia Engineering Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the

ITA 351/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta1. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year 2014-15 2. आयकर अपील सं/Ita No.351/Ahd/2025 – Asst. Year 2014-15 1. The Dcit Circle-1(1)(1) Ahmedabad – 380 015 बनाम / V/S. 2. Aia Engineering Ltd. 115, Gvmm Estate Odhav Road, Odhav Ahmedabad - 382 415 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabca 2777 J (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 01/10/2025 आदेश/Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Are Cross-Appeals, One By The Assessee & The Other By The Revenue Preferred Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)'] Dated 13/01/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-2015. Both The Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. First, We Take Up Revenue'S Appeal In Ita No.565/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2014-15 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 2(17)Section 250

that Vega UAE is duly incorporated as a body corporate under the law of a country outside India which is a requirement of Section 2(17) of the Income tax Act, 1961 and, therefore, Vega UAE has to be accepted as a company within the definition of Section 2(17

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company". The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an Indian company" and the company in which the public are ..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the company" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1 (1) & Tps, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue fails and is hereby dismissed

ITA 942/BANG/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 17

that the assessee-Bank cannot be considered as a Company by following decisions which has not reached finality and even when as per Section 2(17) of the . Page 8 of 9 Act, the Company is defined as an Institution, association or body which is or otherwise assessable or assessed

United Bank of India, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Ltu, Circle - 1, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 428/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee 'being a company'. The company has been defined in section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company has been defined in section 2(26) which defines 'Indian

DCIT/ACIT, Ltu - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S. United Bank of India, Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed (ITA No

ITA 215/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the ITAT. The grounds may be extracted for reference:

Section 115JSection 14ASection 15JSection 211Section 250Section 36(1)(viii)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee 'being a company'. The company has been defined in section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company has been defined in section 2(26) which defines 'Indian

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 180/CHNY/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

manufacturing process within the meaning of the definition. In the saidcase, this Court was considering the definition as was found in Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959, and Rules made thereafter, which reads thereunder: "'manufacture' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means, producing, making ... said conclusion was recorded in paragraph 10 ofthe judgment. "10. But, on careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the terms of section 2(17) should not begiven such a wide interpretation. If such a wide interpretation is given there may be very absurd resultsflowing as a consequence thereof

Jaydeep Petro Chem Co. Pvt.Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward-2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 179/CHNY/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.179/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2006-07 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.180/Chny/2025, Assessment Years: 2007-08 Jaydeep Petro Chem Company Private The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Corporate Ward-2(3), No.24/13, Iii Floor, Chennai. Brindavan Majestic Apartments, Thygarayanagar H.O, Thygarayanagar, Chennai-600 017. [Pan: Aaacj9244J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G.Baskar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 263Section 80I

manufacturing process within the meaning of the definition. In the saidcase, this Court was considering the definition as was found in Section 2(17) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act,1959, and Rules made thereafter, which reads thereunder: "'manufacture' with all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, means, producing, making ... said conclusion was recorded in paragraph 10 ofthe judgment. "10. But, on careful consideration, we are of the opinion that the terms of section 2(17) should not begiven such a wide interpretation. If such a wide interpretation is given there may be very absurd resultsflowing as a consequence thereof

ACIT Circle, 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union बनाम Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company". The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an Indian company" and the company in which the public are ..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the company" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is applicable to every assessee „being a company". The company has been defined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already reproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian company. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an Indian company" and the company in which the public are ..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the company" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions of the Income Tax Act would apply because