← All Phrases

“Section 2(18)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(18)19 judgments

ASIRVAD MICRO FINANCE LIMITED,ANNA SALAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -1(1), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1140/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2016-17 Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Assistant Commissioner Of No.9, 9Th Floor, Club House Road, Income Tax, Annasalai, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai-600 002 Chennai. [Pan: Aagca5275J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, Fca & Mr.Arjun Rajagopalan, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Bipin C.N, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.P.R.Prasanna Varma, FCA &For Respondent: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 2(18)Section 2(71)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 8

Provisions of sec.56(2) (viib) of the Act explicitly excludes company in which the public are substantially interested', which is defined in Section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, as reproduced below (18) "company in which the public are substantially interested" - a company is said to be a company ... Further, by virtue of being a listed Company, Manappuram Finance Limited is "a company in which the public are substantially interested" as per Section 2(18) of the LT Act, 1961. Hence, by virtue of Section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) of the I.T Act, since during the whole

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MCFILLS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 402/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. MCFILLS ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ITA No. 401/Ahd/2022 is partly allowed and ITA 402/Ahd/2022 is dismissed

ITA 401/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 401 & 402/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2017-18 & 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 2(18)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member

THERMODYNE DYNAMICS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -17(3), HYDERABAD

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-
Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

consideration or without consideration where the recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested). Section 2(18) provides the definition of a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is also proposed to exclude the transactions undertaken for business

SILLS KARINGATTIL JOSE,NEDUMKANDOM vs. ITO WARD 2, THODUPUZHA

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 132/COCH/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singhsils Karingattil Jose Income Tax Officer Np 3/406, Karingattil Ward - 2, House, Munnar Road Thodupuzha Vs. Nedumkandom P.O. [Pan: Afopj8789C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. V. Swarnalatha, Sr. D.R
Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(V)Section 250Section 50CSection 53ASection 56(2)(vii)

consideration or without consideration where the recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested). Section 2(18) provides the definition of a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is also proposed to exclude the transactions undertaken for business

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S AADHAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD , MUMBAI

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

ITA 2649/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Asst. Cit Aadhaar Wholesale Trading & Room No. 533, Aayakar Bhawan, Distribution Ltd. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Knowledge House Shyam Nagar, Vs. J V Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), S.O., Mumbai-400 060 Pan/Gir No. Aafca 8793 G (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mani & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mani & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(18)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

assessee submitted that the assessee is covered under the definition of ‘company in which the public is substantially interested’ provided in section 2(18) of the Act and hence provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable over the assessee. The assessee particularly referred ... definition of ‘Company in which public are substantially interested’ as provided in section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) of the Act, according to which a company ( say ‘X’ company) in which more than 50% shares are held throughout the year by a company in which public is substantially interested

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. QUIPPO ENERGY (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 79

public company during the relevant previous year and even before that, is also a Public company. Further, as per clause (b) of section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, a company is said to be "a company in which the public are substantially interested" if it is a company ... company was during the previous year and even before that a public company. It was further contended that as per clause (b) of Section 2(18) of the Act, a company is said to be “a company in which the public are substantially interested”, if it is a company which

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2653/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nShri. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2650/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2635/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 16 NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. COMPTECH SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1773/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

which public are substantially interested. On examination and consideration of the definition of “company in which public are substantially interested” as per section 2(18) of the Act, the definition of “public company” as given in section 2(71) of the Companies Act, 2013 and the definition of “subsidiary company

ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ANSAL CONDOMINIUM PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 760/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri R. S. Singhvi, Advocate; &For Respondent: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth
Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 56(2)(viia)

consideration or without consideration where the recipient is a firm or a company (not being a company in which public are substantially interested). Section 2(18) provides the definition of a company in which the public are substantially interested. It is also proposed to exclude the transactions undertaken for business

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

listed company on a recognized stock exchange of Singapore. In this connection, the Assessee seeks to draw support from the provisions of section 2(18)(B)(c) of the Act, which provides that the wholly owned subsidiary of a listed company would be regarded as "a company in which public ... regarded as a listed company on a recognized stock exchange of Singapore. Further, assessee in support drew a reference of provisions of section 2(18)(B)(c) of the Act and placed reliance on decision of IT AT, Pune bench in the case of Daimler Chrysler India

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 199/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT)
Section 115JSection 129(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(17)Section 2(18)

justified in holding that the assessee cannot be termed as a company within the meaning of Section 2(18) of the IT Act and consequently section 115JB is not applicable to the assessee. 2. The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or later any of the grounds ... question of law which has been framed is very clear whether the respondent assessee will be governed under Section 115 JA read with Section 2(18)(a). On a plain reading as reproduced above and in view of forgoing conclusion and even as per statement of Mr. Mathur, it will

M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

losses and unabsorbed depreciation by invoking the provisions of section 79 of the Act without considering the provision of section 2(18) of the Act and section 3(iv) of Companies Act 1956. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income ... carried forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation by invoking the provision of Section 79 of the Act without considering the provisions of Section 2(18) of the Act and Section 3(iv) of the Companies Act, 1956. According to the assessee, the AO did not had the power (suo-motto

DCIT, RANGE- 8(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S HOTEL LEELA VENTURE LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by th

ITA 4453/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S Hotel Leela Venture Ltd., Tax, Range 8(2), The Leela Kempinski Sahar, R. No. 216-A, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Andheri (East), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400059. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaach 3167 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 30/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Prakash K. Jotwani, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, CIT-DR
Section 72ASection 79

Clause (18) in Section 2. clause (a), (aa), (ab), (ac) and (ad) of the Clause (18) in Section 2. provision of Section 2(18) is The only probability of covering the The only probability of covering the provision of Section 2(18) is under Sub clause (b). For this assessee

HUMUZA CONSULTANTS,MUMBAI vs. THE PR. CIT-19, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the stay application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 726/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Humuza Consultants Vs The Principal Commissioner Of 6Th Floor, Wokhardt Towers Income-Tax-19, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex Room No. 228, 2Nd Floor, Bandra East Matru Mandir Mumbai-400 01 Tardeo Road, Pan : Aahfh9240E Mumbai-400 007 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Jd Mistry & Hiten Chande Respondent By Shri K.K. Mishra (Cit,Dr) Date Of Hearing 07-12-2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07-01-2022 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi (Am):

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263Section 56Section 68

that the Wokhardt Ltd is a company listed on National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange. Therefore, in terms of the provisions of section 2(18) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is a company ‗in which public are substantially interested‘ and hence, when the shares of a listed ... share of Wokhardt Ltd, which is a listed company in which the public are substantially interested. 25. According to provision of section 2 (18) of the Act, (18) "Company in which the public are substantially interested"—a company is said to be a company in which the public are substantially