← All Phrases

“Section 17(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 17(1) is CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd. (341 ITR 385), cited in 270 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 17(1)

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.

Lissie Medical Institutions v. CIT
348 ITR 344 · 2012 · High Court
164
citing judgments

The Kerala High Court held that charitable institutions claiming exemption under Section 11 are not entitled to claim depreciation on assets used for charitable purposes, taking a view contrary to most other High Courts.

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.

Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee (AIR 1964 SC 1336 Mata Din v. A. Narayanan
3 SCC 545 · 1985 · Reported
116
citing judgments

When considering an application for condonation of delay, the court must examine whether the mistake causing the delay was bona fide or merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose, guiding the exercise of its discretion.

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.

Sambhaji and Others v. Gangabai and Others
17 SCC 117 · 2008 · Supreme Court
87
citing judgments

Procedural law serves as an aid to justice, not an obstruction, and should not ordinarily be construed as mandatory; it is subservient to substantive justice.

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.

Judgments citing Section 17(1)

Sh. Martin Ekka S/O Sh. Lalsay Ekka, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward -1, Panchkula

In the result, the ground no

ITA 281/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, 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

Nikunj Kaushik Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-32(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed on merits

ITA 2919/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalnikunj Kaushik Shah, 201, Laxmi Palace Chsl, Vileparle (East), Mumbai- 400057, Pan: Apeps6446R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-32(1), R. No. 335, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Kothari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

bound to be limited. 4. The following examples (which are by no means exhaustive) indicate the attitude which officers should adopt: (1) Section 17(1) of the 1922 Act [section 113 of the 1961 Act] - While dealing with the assessment of a non-resident assessee the officer should bring

DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4607/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Director ("MD"). The MD, being an employee, the commission payable to the MD was considered to a part of his salary as per section 17(1) of the Act and the tax on the same was deducted under section 192 of the Act when the said commission was paid

M/S. Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 6(3), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4562/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Director ("MD"). The MD, being an employee, the commission payable to the MD was considered to a part of his salary as per section 17(1) of the Act and the tax on the same was deducted under section 192 of the Act when the said commission was paid

Kansai Nerolac Paints Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 6(2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3642/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Director ("MD"). The MD, being an employee, the commission payable to the MD was considered to a part of his salary as per section 17(1) of the Act and the tax on the same was deducted under section 192 of the Act when the said commission was paid

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Director ("MD"). The MD, being an employee, the commission payable to the MD was considered to a part of his salary as per section 17(1) of the Act and the tax on the same was deducted under section 192 of the Act when the said commission was paid

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

Director ("MD"). The MD, being an employee, the commission payable to the MD was considered to a part of his salary as per section 17(1) of the Act and the tax on the same was deducted under section 192 of the Act when the said commission was paid

The Supreme Industrial Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Ltu Circle, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7598/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7598/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) The Supreme Industries Ltd. Acit Ltu, Circle, बिधम/ 612, Raheja Chambers, Free Mumbai Vs. Press Journal Marg, Room No. X, 29Th Floor, Nariman Point, Mumbai- World Trade Centre-1, 400021. Cuffee Parade, Mumbai- 400005. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact1344F (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh Shah Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar (Cit- Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri Harsh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar (CIT- DR)
Section 143(3)Section 17(1)Section 197Section 40ASection 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 92BSection 92C

demonstrated that the limits prescribed therein was towards the gross remuneration inclusive of salary and commission. The Ld. AR further submitted that even Section 17(1) of 4 A.Y. 2015-16 Supreme Industries Ltd. the Act which defined the term ‘salary’ included fees & commission and therefore according to him both ... present context as the said provision sets out the parameters for payment of overall remuneration to Directors in unison. We also note that Section 17(1) of the Act which defines ‘salary’, includes any ‘commission’ paid in addition to salary and therefore the commission is noted to form part

First International Business Ltd., Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 46/ASR/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar20 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.46/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 154oSection 194CSection 250Section 40

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

Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu, Baloda Bazar, Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Jao Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

ITA 64/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 64/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Bhuneshwar Prasad Sahu Main Road, Raseda, Baloda Bazar, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Batps7721N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cpc, Jao-Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Sunil Kumar Doshi, Barmer vs. DCIT, CPC / ITO, Ward-1, Bangalore / Barmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 124/JODH/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur31 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Making Assessment, Which Is Beyond Jurisdiction Of The Present Proceedings. 2. A. The Ld. Ao Has Erred In Not Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 62,641/- Made By The Ld. Ao In 143(1) Order On Account Of Depreciation Claimed. B. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Decision Of Hon’Ble

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 56

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 80/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Arun Kumar Verma, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer 1(2), Bhilai, Durg

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 79/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.79 & 80/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Arun Kumar Verma Plot No.152, Telgu Para, Maroda Tank, Maroda, Bhilai (C.G.) Pan : Abkpv0530H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Puja Bajaj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 108/RPR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Santosh Kumar Nishad, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur29 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 107 & 108/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-2020 Santosh Kumar Nishad Mandhar, Mohadi, Tehsil : Dharsiwa, Raipur-493 111 (C.G.) Pan : Agfpn5475R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 36(1)(va)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Shrimati Sakshi Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 98/ASR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(3)Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH

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

year for computing capital gain would be when the award was passed and not in the year when possession was given under section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act as the vesting of land in the Government takes place on making the award. Yet, in another case

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, New Delhi

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

ITA 5326/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd., Vs Dcit, 5Th Floor, 9, Cgo Complex, Circle-1, Ltu, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003. New Delhi Pan-Aaacm0828R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aditya Chhajed, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Princy Singla, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

Supreme Court, Dated: - 05 August 1971 • "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-tax Officer ... Brothers And Others, 82 ITR 50 in the following manner:- "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

Iecs Limited Employee Pf Covered Under Fps, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Banglore

ITA 2922/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conference)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Senior DR
Section 10(25)Section 10(25)(ii)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 17(1)

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : Assessee is a recognised provident fund under section 17(1) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 having been set up in 1976 in order to maintain provident fund account of the employees of Indo Euro Chemical

Scott R.Bayman vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Del

ITA - 285 / 2003HC Delhi17 Aug 2012
Section 131Section 143(1)(a)Section 17Section 2

concededly, the employer did not provide rent free accommodation. Therefore, the lower authorities did not include the value or cost of repairs under Section 17(1). The assessee was entitled to allowances; he hired the premises which he occupied. Those premises were occupied by his predecessor; it is contended that