← All Phrases

“Section 17(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(1)62 judgments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1098/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwallaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows : "From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

nsection 2(9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently ... upon this\nquestion, it may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act as well\nas its scheme. Thus, the question whether section 17(1) was applicable to the\ncase of the assessee-firm was not free from doubt. Therefore, the ITO was not\njustified in thinking that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

nsection 2(9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently ... upon this\nquestion, it may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act as well\nas its scheme. Thus, the question whether section 17(1) was applicable to the\ncase of the assessee-firm was not free from doubt. Therefore, the ITO was not\njustified in thinking that

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

nsection 2(9) of 1922 Act to include a HUF and a local authority. Unless a firm\ncan be considered as a 'person', section 17(1) of the 1922 Act cannot govern\nthe assessment of the assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently ... upon this\nquestion, it may be necessary to examine various provisions in the Act as well\nas its scheme. Thus, the question whether section 17(1) was applicable to the\ncase of the assessee-firm was not free from doubt. Therefore, the ITO was not\njustified in thinking that

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) is reproduced herein below :- “From what has been said above, it is clear that the question whether section 17(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was applicable to the case of the first respondent is not free from doubt. Therefore, the Income

SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER TEERAPANTH MAHILA MANDAL GANGASHAHAR,BIKANER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 777 &

ITA 785/JODH/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 17(1)

under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. But finally, after the passing of the impugned orders, the assessee received the said registration under section 17(1) of RPT Act, 1959 and the copy of the said registration certificate dated 01/08/2024 is placed on the record. 4. The Ld.DR had verified

SHREE JAIN SWETAMBER TERAPANTH MAHILA MANDAL GANGASHAHAR,BIKANER vs. CIT EXEMPTION, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos 777 &

ITA 777/JODH/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur11 Sept 2025

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 17(1)

under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. But finally, after the passing of the impugned orders, the assessee received the said registration under section 17(1) of RPT Act, 1959 and the copy of the said registration certificate dated 01/08/2024 is placed on the record. 4. The Ld.DR had verified

SANJIV SOSHIL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), KAUTILYA BHAVAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2096/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble\N&\Nshri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon'Ble\Ni.T.A. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N Assessment Year: 2020-21\Nmr. Sanjiv Mehta\Nvs\Nprincipal Commissioner Of\Nworld Crest\Nlodha World Towers\Nw-5701 & E-5703\Nlower Parel\Nmumbai - 400013\N[Pan: Aanpm7571K]\Nअपीलार्थी/ (Appellant)\Nassessee By:\Nrevenue By :\Nincome-Tax – 1, Mumbai\Nप्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent)\Nshri Ketan Ved & Ms. Riya Shah, A/Rs\Nshri Arun Kanti Datta, Cit, D/R\Nसुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing\N: 16/07/2025\Nघोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement:\N/07/2025\Nआदेश/Order\Nper Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am:\N1. This Appeal By The Assessee Is Preferred Against The Order Of\Nthe Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai\N[Hereinafter 'The Ld. Pr. Cit'] Dated 10/03/2025 Pertaining To Ay\N2020-21 Framed U/S 263 Of The Act.\N2. The Sum & Substance Of The Grievance Of The Assessee Is That The\Nld. Pr. Cit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Conferred Upon Him By The\Nprovisions Of Section 263 Of The Act & Further Erred In Holding That The\Nassessment Order Dated 25/08/2022 Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The\Nact Is Erroneous Insofar As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.\N3. Briefly Stated The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives\Nincome From Salary & Investments & Filed His Return Of Income On\Nआयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण\Nincome Tax Appellate Tribunal\Nι.Τ.Α. No. 2096/Mum/2025\N2\N10/12/2020 Declaring Total Income At ₹ 23,71,38,203/-. The Return Was\Nselected For Scrutiny Assessment & Accordingly Statutory Notices Were\Nissued & Served Upon The Assessee. After Perusal Of The Return Of\Nincome, Materials Available On Record & Reply Furnished By The\Nassessee On Different Dates In Respect Of The Notices Issued, No Adverse\Ninference Was Drawn & The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was\Naccepted As Such.\N3.

For Respondent: \nIncome-tax – 1, Mumbai
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 90

nMUMBAI\n4, B.D. SAWANT MARG,\nCHAKALA, ANDHERI (\nEAST)\nState\nMAHARASHTRA\nPincode\n400099\n1\nGross Salary(la + lb + 1c)\n189705404\nla\nSalary as per section 17(1)\n157674491\nS. No.\nNature of salary\nDescription\nAmount\n1\nBasic Salary\n70306896\n2\nOther Allowance\n87367595\n1b\nValue of perquisites as per section 17 ... nAddress of Employer\nLondon\nTown/City\nLondon\nState\nSTATE OUTSIDE INDIA\nZipcode\nXXXXXX\n1\nGross Salary(la + lb + 1c)\n10192906\nla\nSalary as per section 17(1)\n0\nS. No.\nNature of salary\nDescription\nAmount\n1b\nValue of perquisites as per section 17(2)\n10192906\nS. No.\nNature of perquisites\nDescription

ASHUTOSH GIRISH BHARKHADA ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 929/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 17(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2202/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

called the Development Authority for any development area. The Kanpur Development Authority has been constituted by the Government under this section. Section 17(1) of this Act provides 9 | P a g e as under: "If in the opinion of State Government, any land is required for the purpose

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. DCIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2201/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

called the Development Authority for any development area. The Kanpur Development Authority has been constituted by the Government under this section. Section 17(1) of this Act provides 9 | P a g e as under: "If in the opinion of State Government, any land is required for the purpose

KANPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,KANPUR vs. ADDL.CIT, EXEMPTION RANGE, GHAZIABAD

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2200/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, /And Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Dayainder SinghFor Respondent: Sidhu
Section 11Section 13(8)Section 143(3)Section 234B

called the Development Authority for any development area. The Kanpur Development Authority has been constituted by the Government under this section. Section 17(1) of this Act provides 9 | P a g e as under: "If in the opinion of State Government, any land is required for the purpose

HIMASAGAR KRISHNA MUTHAPPAGARI,TIRUPATI vs. ITO., WARD-2(3), TIRUPATI

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

does not come to the rescue of the assessee before us. We, say so, for the reason that, as per the post-amended Section 17(1-A) of the Registration Act, 1908, any document containing contracts to 13 Himsagar Krishna Vs. Pr. CIT, Tirupati transfer for consideration, any immovable property ... Section 53A of the Act. For the sake of clarity, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, is culled out as under: Section 17(1) in The Registration Act, 1908 (1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district

SHIVABASAPPA KARIYAPPANAVAR ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1537/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

nassessee in the previous year whether paid or not is chargeable under the\nhead “Salaries.\" Further on plain reading of the section 17(1)(iv) of the Act\nfor the purpose of the section 15 & section 16 of the Act, the Salary includes\nprofits in lieu of salary or wages ... termination simpliciter". Termination from service could be\nby way of compulsory retirement, voluntary retirement, resignation and superannuation.\n27. \"Salary\" as defined by section 17(1) of the Act covers any kind of remuneration received\nby or due to the employee irrespective of the fact that the payment is received during

RAKESH SAXENA,BHARATPUR vs. THE PCIT, VADODARA-1, VADODARA

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

ITA 823/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 17(2)Section 263Section 40

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

DAYAL SINGH,VILL FATEHPUR PO BUREWALA vs. ITO WARD-1, PANCHKULA

In the result, the ground no

ITA 519/CHANDI/2024[AY 2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Dec 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 519/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 बनाम Dayal Singh, The Ito, Vill Fatehpur Ward -1, Po Burewala Panchkula Distt.Amabla 134204 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Acdps7697G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Y.R. Saini, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 03.12.2024 आदेश/Order The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Addl. / Jcit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assess Ee In This Appeal H As Taken Foll Owing Groun Ds Of Appeal: 1 That In The F Acts & Circumstance Of The Case The Id. Addl/Jcit (A)-9 Mumbai Of Cit (A)( Nfac) Has Erred In Law By Placing Reliance On Judgement Of Hon'Ble Apex Court In The Case Of Maji Sinneman Vs Reddy

For Appellant: Shri Y.R. Saini, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A

talks about an assessee who is in receipt of a sum of money in the nature of salary and as per section 17(1)(iii), salary includes gratuity. In view of the same, the AO is directed to provide appropriate relief as per section 89 in respect of net gratuity

NIRMALA RANI L/H OF SH. AZAD SINGH,PINJORE vs. ITO, WARD -1, , PANCHKULA

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 452/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard & Disposed Of.

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 10(10)Section 25FSection 89(1)

provides that where an assessee is in receipt of a sum of money in the nature of salary and as per section 17(1)(iii), salary includes gratuity. In view of the same, the AO is directed to allow appropriate relief as per section 89 in respect of taxable portion

NARESH KUMAR KAMBOJ,ZIRAKPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , PANCHKULA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 337/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Pandey, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjeet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)

talks about an assessee who is in receipt of a sum of money in the nature of salary and as per section 17(1)(iii), salary includes gratuity. In view of the same, the AO is directed to provide appropriate relief as per section 89 in respect of net gratuity

GAU JEEV PARMARTH SEWA SANSTHA,ALWAR vs. CIT(E), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 333/JPR/2024[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H.)
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 8

which include religious trust/ societies also in is ambit if they are meant for benefit of public and section 17(1), which makes registration is mandatory, in view of the above, furnish an explanation as to why the same should not be considered as violation of section 12AB(1

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4