“Section 2(42)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(42)5 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-3(2)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5742/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Asst. Cit (International M/S Oxford University Press, Taxation)-3(2)(2), 22 Workspace 2Nd Floor, 1/22 Asaf Vs. R. No. 615, Sixth Floor, Ali Road, Daryaganj Central, Delhi, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Delhi-110002. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaaco 3279 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Rahul CharkhaFor Respondent: 28/01/2025

Section 1Section 2(42)Section 271(1)(c)

branch is covered under the definition of a foreign company branch is covered under the definition of a foreign company as defined under section 2(42) of the Act with effect from as defined under section 2(42) of the Act with effect from as defined under section 2(42

NIKESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, GURGON

In the result, appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 1008/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: We Proceed To Deal With The Substantive Issues Arising

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 2

further observe that learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee has submitted that the expression ‘held’ appearing in section 2(42)A, does not mean legal ownership. In this context, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case

NIPRA TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 1620/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nipra Trading Private National Faceless Appeal Limited, Centre (Nfac), 501, Corporate Arena, Delhi D.P. Piramal Road, Vs. Bangur Nagar S.O., Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 104 Pan: Aabcn1311K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam R. Mota, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R

Section 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2Section 250

erred in holding that equity shares of M/s. Visagar Polytex Ltd. in question are hit by 1st proviso to section 2(42)(A) for the purpose of computing the period of holding and consequently treating the gain as STCG?" 7. The Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the claim

BACHUBHAI DHARAMSHI ARETHIYA ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CC 3, THANE

In the result with the above discussion Ground No-4 raised by the assessee is dismissed, as we don’t see any reason to interfere in the findings of Ld

ITA 890/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalbachubhai Dharamshi Arethiya, 230, 2Nd Floor, Big Splash, Plot No. 78-79, Sec.Tor-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705. Pan: Adepp8750F ...... Appellant Vs. Acit, Cc- 3, Room No. 12, A-Wing, Ashar It Park, 6Th Floor, Road No. 16Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West)-400604. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Ritika Agarwal, Adv. Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-11 [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 17.01.2020 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 132Section 14ASection 250Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

DY CIT CIRCLE- 12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ARCHROMA INDIA PVT LTD., THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 590/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Bledcit – Circle – 12(1)(1) V. M/S. Archroma India Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor 9Th Floor, D Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mbc Park, Ghodbunder Road Mumbai - 400020 Kasawadavali, Thane Mumbai - 400615 Pan: Aaaca8270F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Madhur Agrawal Department By : Ms. Shailaja Rai

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Ms. Shailaja Rai

Section 170Section 2(42)Section 2(42)(C)Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)Section 50BSection 5O

slump sale of business and therefore it is not in the nature of succession. In this regard he referred to the provisions of section 2(42)C and provisions of section 5OB. He further submitted that Customer Distribution Network (CDN) is an eligible intangible assets or the same ... careful consideration we note that in the present case assessee has acquired the assets under a slump sale. The income tax act under section 2(42)(C) defines slump sale as under: “slump sale means the transfer of one or more undertakings as a result of the sale