← All Phrases

“Section 2(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(2)16 judgments

SHREE CEMENT LIMITED,BANGUR NAGAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee - appellant in ITA No

ITA 1517/JPR/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jun 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Desai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 254Section 36(1)(va)Section 80Section 801A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

ACIT CORP CIRCLE 1 (1), CHENNAI vs. M/S AMTEX INFO SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 546/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.546/Chny/2018 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Amtex Info Solutions Pvt. Tax, Vs. Ltd., Plot No.54, 27Th Street, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai. Sri Krishna Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai – 600 095. [Pan: Aaica 6676K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथH की ओर से/ Assessee By : None JkथH की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri G. Suresh. Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Jagadish, A.M : Aforesaid Appeal Filed By The Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-, Chennai [Hereinafter “Cit(A)”] Dated 12.12.2017 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By The Assessing Officer [A.O] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 30.03.2016. :- 2 -:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

dated 5th October, 2017 has deleted :- 4 -: the addition as the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the provisions of Section 2(2)(e) of the Act would be applicable only in the hands of registered shareholder and in the present case, the assessee

AGARWAL SPONGE & ENERGY PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1110/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pranav Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)

Agarwal Industries Pvt Ltd which should have been termed as Dividend. However, the Assessing Officer is correctly invoked the provisions of Section 2(2)(e) where the appellant is not paying interest and has majority shares. It is pertinent point out, the judicial judgment in the case

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 494/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is applicable only to residents. As per section 2(2) of the said Act, assessee means "a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of clause

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. MANISH VIJAY MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 493/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is applicable only to residents. As per section 2(2) of the said Act, assessee means "a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of clause

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHRA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 492/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is applicable only to residents. As per section 2(2) of the said Act, assessee means "a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of clause

THE DY CIT (IT)-CIRCLE-3(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. URVI MANISH MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the learned Assessing Officer and CO of the assessee for both the years are dismissed

ITA 491/MUM/2021[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash, DR
Section 148

Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 is applicable only to residents. As per section 2(2) of the said Act, assessee means "a person, being a resident other than not ordinarily resident in India within the meaning of clause

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

ITA 2891/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dilip Jr. Standing Counsel for Dept. (DR)
Section 192Section 195Section 40Section 80JSection 9(1)(vii)

Revenue is that the employees of the Assessee would not come within the purview of the definition of workman under Section 2(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') and that since the employee has not completed 300 days of employment in the previous

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

ITA 2889/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 201(1)Section 40Section 80J

Revenue is that the employees of the Assessee would not come within the purview of the definition of workman under Section 2(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') and that since the employee has not completed 300 days of employment in the previous

WEP PERIPHERALS LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1905/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2012 – 13

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Srinivas Rao Bandaru, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 2(22)(e)

ITA No.1905/Bang/2017 Wep Peripherals Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Revenue is that the employees of the Assessee would not come within the purview of the definition of workman under section 2(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') and that since the employee has not completed 300 days of employment in the previous

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

Revenue is that the employees of the Assessee would not come within the purview of the definition of workman under section 2(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') and that since the employee has not completed 300 days of employment in the previous

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

ITA 2890/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S Honeywell Technolgoy Solutions Jt. Cit, Special Range 3 Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building Survey No. 96 & 97, Boganahalli 6Th Block, Koramangala Village & Survey No. 72/2 & 72/5 Vs. Bengaluru 560095 Doddakananahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru 560103 Pan – Aaach4151J Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2022

For Appellant: Smt. Shreya Loyalaka, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 2Section 2(2)Section 80J

Revenue is that the employees of the Assessee would not come within the purview of the definition of workman under Section 2(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') and that since the employee has not completed 300 days of employment in the previous

INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. Now let us look at the definition of the word ‘aerodrome’. 57. As per section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act, 1934, ‘aerodrome’ means any definite or limited ground or water area intended to be used, either wholly ... concession agreement between the BIAL and Government of India. It has also been held that the expression “aerodrome” as defined in section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act is an inclusive definition and uses the expression ‘includes’. It has been further held that the large amount

M/S. INDIANOIL SKYTAKING PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. Now let us look at the definition of the word ‘aerodrome’. 57. As per section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act, 1934, ‘aerodrome’ means any definite or limited ground or water area intended to be used, either wholly ... concession agreement between the BIAL and Government of India. It has also been held that the expression “aerodrome” as defined in section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act is an inclusive definition and uses the expression ‘includes’. It has been further held that the large amount

M/S INDIANOIL SKYTANKING PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

section 2 of the Aircraft Act, 1934. Now let us look at the definition of the word ‘aerodrome’. 57. As per section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act, 1934, ‘aerodrome’ means any definite or limited ground or water area intended to be used, either wholly ... concession agreement between the BIAL and Government of India. It has also been held that the expression “aerodrome” as defined in section 2(2) of the Aircraft Act is an inclusive definition and uses the expression ‘includes’. It has been further held that the large amount