← All Phrases

“Section 2(17)”

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

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

earlier assessment years, KIA had consistently been treated as a non-resident corporate entity.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 2(31) of the Act", "Section 2(17) of the Act"], "issues": "The issue was whether the assessee should be assessed as a trust, as indicated

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)

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

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

operative society\nor association of persons for generating electricity primarily for use of members of such\ncooperative society or association. Section 2(17) defines "distribution licensee" to mean a\nlicensee authorised to operate and maintain a distribution system for supplying electricity\nto the consumers in his area of supply. "Distribution

LINKLATERS LLP,LONDON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE (3)(1)(2), MUMBAI, 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

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

ITA 1497/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is\napplicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been\ndefined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already\nreproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian\ncompany. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian\ncompany” and the company in which the public are „substantially\ninterested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the\n„company” has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act would apply

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 1496/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is\napplicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been\ndefined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already\nreproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian\ncompany. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian\ncompany” and the company in which the public are „substantially\ninterested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the\n„company” has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act would apply

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 1495/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Nov 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri Vishal Bhat - CA
Section 115JSection 211(2)

Companies Act, 2013, first of all, Section 115JB(2) is\napplicable to every assessee „being a company“. The company has been\ndefined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already\nreproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian\ncompany. Indian company ... bank shall be deemed to be an „Indian\ncompany” and the company in which the public are „substantially\ninterested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the\n„company” has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act would apply

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, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas, the\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 565/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 2(17)Section 250

that Vega UAE is duly incorporated as a body corporate under the\nlaw of a country outside India which is a requirement of Section 2(17) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 and, therefore, Vega UAE has to be accepted as a company within the\ndefinition 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\nappeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 351/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: \nShri Tushar Hemani, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: \nShri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 2(17)Section 250

that Vega UAE is duly incorporated as a body corporate under the\nlaw of a country outside India which is a requirement of Section 2(17) of the Income\ntax Act, 1961 and, therefore, Vega UAE has to be accepted as a company within the\ndefinition 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
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\napplicable to every assessee „being a company". The company has been\ndefined in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act which we have already\nreproduced in para 22 above. Thus, the company means any Indian\ncompany. Indian company ... bank shall be\ndeemed to be an Indian company\" and the company in which the public are\n..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act,\nthe company\" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the\nprovisions of the Income Tax Act would apply

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, 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, 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, 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
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

bank shall be deemed to\nbe an Indian company" and the company in which the public are\n..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the\ncompany\" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions\nof the Income Tax Act would apply ... bank to be a\ncompany for the purposes of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956.\n54. As explained in the foregoing paragraphs, Section 2(17) of the income Tax\nAct r.w.s.2(26) which defines company\" to mean a company formed and\nregistered under the Companies Act, 1956, does

ACIT, CIRCLE -3(4), MUMBAI, 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
For Appellant: \nShri C. NareshFor Respondent: \nShri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

bank shall be deemed to\nbe an Indian company\" and the company in which the public are\n..substantially interested' and since in Section 2(17) of the Income Tax Act, the\ncompany\" has been defined as any Indian company therefore, the provisions\nof the Income Tax Act would apply ... bank to be a\ncompany for the purposes of Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956.\n54. As explained in the foregoing paragraphs, Section 2(17) of the income Tax\nAct r.w.s.2(26) which defines company\" to mean a company formed and\nregistered under the Companies Act, 1956, does

Showing 1–20 of 63 · Page 1 of 4