BharatTax.net
← All Phrases

“Section 2(18)(vii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(18)(vii)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(18)(vii) is Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 18. R. Dalmia v. CIT (Central) (186 ITR 313), cited in 24 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(18)(vii)

Ors., 1963 AIR 1526 17. ITO vs. B.N. Bhattacharya, 112 ITR 423 18. R. Dalmia v. CIT (Central)
186 ITR 313 · 1990 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The case addresses the taxability of cash withdrawn from sub-contractors' bank accounts by employees of a civil contractor engaged in infrastructure development. The revenue observed these withdrawals during search proceedings, indicating potential issues with the assessee's tax compliance.

Judgments citing Section 2(18)(vii)

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 620/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S.(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle – 3(3)(1), Mumbai Ruchi Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.706, Room No. 522, Aayakarbhavan, Vs Tulsiani Chambers, Free Press Journal M K Road, Churchgate, Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan: Aaecr1591A] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 2Section 2(18)(b)Section 254(1)Section 56(2)(viib)

Apollo Health and Life Style Ltd., (AHLL) which is subsidiary of AHEL. Since AHEL is a public limited company and by virtue of Section 2(18)(vii) of the Act, the assessee-company also a company in which public are substantially interested. Hence, the provisions of Section 56(2)(viib