← All Phrases

“Section 17(2)(iv)”

Section References (mined)Section 17Section 17(2)(iv)9 judgments

AJAY JAIN,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT-3, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 388/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Ajay Jain, Vs. Acit-3, A-22, Sector J, Aliganj Extension, Lucknow New Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aaqpj0273N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.07.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Jcit(Appeals)-13, Mumbai Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.05.2024 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act On 15.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Learned Lower Court Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. 2. That The Appeal Filed U/S 250 Should Have Been Accepted By The Learned Lower Court. 3. Learned Lower Court Erred In Confirming The Addition Made In The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Ignoring The Various Replies & Evidences Filed Before The Learned Assessing Officer. 4. That Learned Lower Court Erred In Making Addition Of Rs 5,47,960/- Against Payments Made For Credit Card Being 10% Of The Total Payments Made To Cr Cards When No Expenses Were Claimed By The Appellant In Its Own Return. 5. That The Additions Made Are Bad In Law On The Facts & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 6. That The Addition Made Are Too Excessive, Arbitrary & Without Any Basis. 1 Ajay Jain A.Y. 2016-17 7. That The Order Passed Is Against The Merit, Circumstances & Legal Aspects Of The Case. 8. That The Appellant Seeks Permission To Modify And/Or Add Any Other Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal As The Circumstances Of The Case Might Require Or Justify.”

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwini Kumar, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

business of the firm, they are potentially liable to be added back in his hands as a perquisite within the meaning of section 17(2)(iv). Of course, if the assessee makes out a case that these represent expenditures incurred for the business of the firm, these are not liable

SHARAD KUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MEDIA CIRCLE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1381/CHNY/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Sept 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1381/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 V. Mr. Sharad Kumar, The Dcit, New No.6, Old No.7, Media Circle-1, Nawab Habibullah Avenue, Chennai. 3Rd Street, Chennai-6. [Pan: Aasps 2554 F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. T.M.Suganthamala
Section 2(24)(iv)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. PR.CIT-1, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 44/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI

CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 125/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI

DCIT, C-1(1), CHANDIGARH vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD, CHANDIGARH

In the result, the Appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 103/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ANDSHRI PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Jindal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ,च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE: SHRI

NATASHA KOHLI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1792/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatr Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 17(2)(iv)Section 69

assessee by the company, M/s Travancore Management Resources Pvt. Ltd treating the same as perquisites in the hands of the assessee under section 17(2)(iv) of the Act. (ii) That the addition has been confirmed ignoring the fact that these expenses have been incurred for the purpose of business ... benefit of M/s Travancore Management Resources Pvt. Ltd and not for the benefit of the employee i.e., the assessee and accordingly, provisions of section 17(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act are not attracted. 11. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds

YOSHIO KUBO vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeals are disposed of accordingly

ITA - 441 / 2003HC Delhi31 Jul 2013

extends to diverse manner of concessions or benefits which the employee indirectly enjoys. It was submitted that the Parliament was aware of Section 17(2)(iv), which included all manner of liabilities, such as donations “payable” by the assessee yet it chose to restrict the operation of Section 10(10CC ... does not get extinguished by the mere introduction of Section 10(10CC). If the intention was otherwise, the Parliament would well have amended Section 17(2)(iv). Learned counsel emphasized that the matter could be looked at from yet another angle. Section 10(10CC) operated in an entirely different field

SCOTT R.BAYMAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,DEL

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

Assessing Officer held that the amount of Rs. 50,51,971/- was a perquisite in the hands of the assessee by virtue of Section 17 (2) (iv). 3. The reasoning of the Assessing Officer was that the expenses incurred by the employer was to suit the requirements of employee ... renovate the lease hold property was that of the assessee which was discharged by the employer and therefore clearly fell within mischief of Section 17(2)(iv). 9. Learned counsel argued that a plain reading of Clauses 7 and 9 of the lease deed shows that the lessee could