← All Phrases

“Section 21(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 21Section 21(2)2 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 21(2) is Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT (35 Taxmann.com 335), cited in 322 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 21(2)

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

Shri Dilipkumar Lalwani and Others (107 Appeals) 21 19.12 In Pr. CIT v. Vinita Chaurasia
394 ITR 758 · 2017 · High Court
71
citing judgments

The amended provisions of Section 153C require that documents found during a search must 'pertain to' or 'relate to' the assessee. The High Court held that this requirement does not apply to searches conducted prior to the amendment.

Ltd. v. ACIT
21 Taxmann.com 138 · 2012 · Reported
49
citing judgments

The primary issue concerns the eligibility for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly concerning whether an assessee is a 'developer' or 'contractor' for infrastructure projects. The case appears to discuss the impact of subsequent amendments, such as the Explanation inserted by the Finance Act, 2007, on the classification of contracts and the availability of such deductions.

Essar Oil Ltd. v. ACIT
42 Taxmann.com 21 · 2014 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

A CBDT notification issued under section 90(3) of the Income-tax Act is clarificatory in nature and effective from April 1, 2004, the date section 90(3) was introduced.

PCIT- 7 v. Tally Solutions (P.) Ltd.) (
123 Taxmann.com 21 · 2021 · High Court
32
citing judgments

Amounts referred to under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are not deductible in computing income chargeable under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'.

DCIT CC- 21 New Delhi v. Satkar Roadlines (P) Ltd.
62 Taxmann.com 327 · 2015 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer (AO) of the searched person must record their satisfaction for initiating proceedings against another person under Section 153C, even if the AO is the same individual.

CIT v. Kisan 21 Poona Club Ltd. Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd.
274 ITR 119 · 2005 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Where an assessee earns interest income from investments and cannot specifically identify expenses incurred to earn it, an estimated expenditure as a percentage of income can be allowed as a deduction.

Para 21, 22, 24, 25, 26 10. Magotteaux International SA v. DCIT
141 Taxmann.com 8 · 2022 · Reported
13
citing judgments

Fees for computer software and technical services are taxable as fees for technical services under the Income Tax Act and are not royalties, unless the software is embedded with an enduring benefit and is integral to the business.

Judgments citing Section 21(2)

The Merchants Co-Op Bank Ltd. ( in Liquidation), Dhule vs. The ITO, Ward- -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1927/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1927/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Merchants Co-Op Bank V The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., (In Liquidation), S. Ward-1, Dhule. Cs No.2111, Lane No.6, Near Old Amnalner Stand, Nagarpatti, Dhule-424001. Pan: Aaabt0123H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19, Dated 11.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Appellant Contends That The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Ought To Have

Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 21(2)Section 250Section 80P

with Banks is not an income of appellant, as DICGC has an over-riding title on the said income, as per provisions of section 21(2) of the DICGC Act, 1961 r.w. regulation 22 of the DICGC General Regulation, 1961. 4. Appellant contends that the addition made by the learned

Swaminarayan Co.Op.Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1411/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Kanabar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35A

term of settlement of Swaminarayan Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2010-11 7 claim more specifically in terms of Section 21(2) of the DICGC, Act 1961, the liquidator was required to repay to the corporation, as soon as the amount is realised in his hand