← All Phrases

“Section 2(284)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(284)22 judgments

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 2037/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

this clause) amount of expenditure by way of\ninterest and other charges according to the definition of interest as laid\ndown in section 2(284) of IT Act 1961 other than the amount of interest\nincluded in clause(i) incurred during the previous year

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

ITA 1248/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

this clause) amount of expenditure by way of\ninterest and other charges according to the definition of interest as laid\ndown in section 2(284) of IT Act 1961 other than the amount of interest\nincluded in clause(i) incurred during the previous year

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

this clause) amount of expenditure by way of\ninterest and other charges according to the definition of interest as laid\ndown in section 2(284) of IT Act 1961 other than the amount of interest\nincluded in clause(i) incurred during the previous year

D.C.I.T CIR - 10(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S EUREKA FORBS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 92C

this clause) amount of expenditure by way of\ninterest and other charges according to the definition of interest as laid\ndown in section 2(284) of IT Act 1961 other than the amount of interest\nincluded in clause(i) incurred during the previous year

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3173/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning\nof Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the\nhouse and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3160/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning of Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the house and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2971/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning\nof Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the\nhouse and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2970/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning of Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the house and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2943/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning of Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the house and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2894/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same holding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning of Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the house and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 2893/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)

appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same\nholding that the amount paid by the Board was not really interest within the meaning\nof Section 2(284) but actually compensation for the delay in construction of the\nhouse and handing over possession of the same to the allottees. The revenue filed

ACIT 421 MUMBAI, MUMBAI CITY vs. SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI, MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the\nappeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1022/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2025AY 2022-23
Section 112Section 194CSection 250Section 37(1)Section 40Section 50

income to the\naccount of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply\naccordingly.\n15. The IT Act defines \"interest\" under section 2(284) as:\n‘2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-\n(284) \"interest\" means interest payable in any manner in respect

DCIT(OSD)(TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2633/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 194ASection 194HSection 2Section 201Section 201(1)Section 222Section 271C

Inter alia, it has also been argued that the impugned nature of payment was not within the definition of interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income-tax Act. With this factual back ground, the case laws relied upon is Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), which now stood upheld

DCIT (TDS)(OSD) - 2(3), MUMBAI vs. M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD., MUMBAI

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

ITA 2131/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit (Tds) (Osd)-2(3), M/S Wockhardt Ltd., Room No. 310, 3Rd Floor, Mtnl Wockhardt Towers, Bandra Building, Cumballa Hill, Vs. Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400026. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaacw 2472 M Appellant Respondent : Assessee By Mr. Pranay Gandhi, Ar : Revenue By Mr. Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, Cit-Dr : Date Of Hearing 20/12/2022 : Date Of Pronouncement 30/12/2022

For Respondent: Assessee by Mr. Pranay Gandhi, AR
Section 194H

nature of payment was not within the definition of impugned nature of payment was not within the definition of interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income

DCIT (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. WOCKHARDT LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2314/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vallabh Gokhale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Byomakesh Pradipta Kumar Panda, D.R
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)

Inter alia, it has also been argued that the impugned nature of payment was not within the definition of interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income-tax Act. With this factual back ground, the case laws relied upon is Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), which now stood upheld

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3). MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S WOCKHARDT LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 894/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Inter alia, it has also been argued that the impugned nature of payment was not within the definition of interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income-tax Act. With this factual back ground, the case laws relied upon is Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), which now stood upheld

JCIT (OSD) (TDS)-2(3), MUMBAI., MUMBAI. vs. M/S WOCKHARDT LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2012–

ITA 893/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Pranay GandhiFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli
Section 133ASection 194ASection 194HSection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

Inter alia, it has also been argued that the impugned nature of payment was not within the definition of interest as prescribed under section 2(284) of the Income-tax Act. With this factual back ground, the case laws relied upon is Nirma Industries Ltd. (supra), which now stood upheld

ANIL BHAGWAN ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO (IT) 1(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4385/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MisraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 154Section 251(1)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 55A

Income tax in the Madras High Court (2011) 11 taxmann.com 193 (Mad.) where it was held that in view of provisions of section 2(284), to call an amount received as interest, at least one of conditions should be satisfied, namely, same should have been received

LEILA ADVANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 16(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2270/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Tapas MishraFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(2)Section 45(5)(b)Section 48Section 48(1)Section 54F

Income tax in the Madras High Court (2011) 11 taxmann.com 193 (Mad.) where it was held that in view of provisions of section 2(284), to call an amount received as interest, at least one of conditions should be satisfied, namely, same should have been received

DIRECTOR OF INCOME4 TAX ; INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I NEW DELHI vs. CARGIL TSF PTE LTD

ITA - 623 / 2012HC Delhi19 Nov 2012
Section 2Section 2(284)Section 234Section 40

Cargill Global Trading (I) (P) Lt(l. 2011 (335) ITR 94), the Courl took into consideration the definition of "interest" under Section 2(284) of the Act and also analysed the contents of two circulars issued by the CBD'I', being No.65 dated 02.09.1971 and the subsequent one dated

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2