← All Phrases

“Section 2(32)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(32)5 judgments

RAMSAMY PONGIANNA GOUNDER DESAMANI,PALLIPALAYAM vs. ITD, WARD 2, , TIRUCHENGODE

ITA 2438/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2438/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Late. Ramasamy Pongianna Gounder Desamani, (Represented By Legal Heir Shri. P.D.Balachandhran) 79, R.P.Street, Sankari Bye-Pass Road, R.P.Street,\Pallipalayam – 638 006. [Pan:Acqpd-3208-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ito, Vs. Ward -2, Tiruchengode. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A. : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, J.C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025 : 16.10.2025 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Herein After “Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.07.2024 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. T. S. Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(22)(e)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एस एस विश्वनेत्र रवि

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(2)(1)MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MADHUSUDHAN BABUBHAI KOCHA, MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 3516/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara (Jm) & Shri Girish Agrawal (Am)

Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

time during the previous year, beneficially entitled to not less than twenty per cent of the income of such concern]" Further, Section 2(32) of the Act defines 'substantial interest in a company' and this section is reproduced below:- Section 2(32) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 states

APEEJAY SURRENDRE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 988/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Under these facts of the case, provision as contained in section 2(22)(e) and the definition of substantial inter- est contained in section 2(32) of the Act, the beneficial ownership of shares is with KSWPL. 8.1. Keeping the intention in mind while enactment of section 2

APEEJAY SURRENDRA MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 987/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

Under these facts of the case, provision as contained in section 2(22)(e) and the definition of substantial inter- est contained in section 2(32) of the Act, the beneficial ownership of shares is with KSWPL. 8.1. Keeping the intention in mind while enactment of section 2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENRTALCIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. VIJAYNAGAR FOOD AND NUTRACEUTICALS PVT LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 246/VIZ/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 246/Viz/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Vijaynagar Food & Income Tax, Nutraceuticals Pvt Ltd, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aadcv 9495 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(32)

failed to appreciate that the explanation 3(b) to section 2(22)(e) is an independent provision and the provisions of section 2(32) do not match ‘mutatis mutandis’ apply to the present case. (iv) Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 4. Ground No.3 ... order and hence the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act are not attracted in view of specific explanation in section 2(32) of the Act as to when a shareholder of a company is said to be having substantial interest in the company. In the case

Section 2(32) — 5 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax