← All Phrases

“Section 101(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 101Section 101(2)7 judgments

SEABIRD MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAMNAGAR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 1, JAMNAGAR, JAMANGAR

ITA 83/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 83/Rjt/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2017-18) Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Vs. Ltd. Office No. 309 & 310, Centroid Luxuria, Nr. Crystal Mall, Khodiyar Colony, Aerodrome Road, Jamnagar 361006 Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle-1, Jamnagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Subhash Bridge, Jamnagar -Rajkot Highway, Jamnagar स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccs 9869 C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant By : Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2025 Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: आदेश / Order Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Dehi/ Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short 'Ld. Cit(A)'], Dated 02.01.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer, Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 31.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “All The Below Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal Are Independent & Without Prejudices To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 114Section 115JSection 143(3)

shareholder of any paid up equity and preference capital AND in view of the above, the provisions of and the procedure prescribed under Section 101(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 was not applicable and the same was dispensed with along with publication of the notice of hearing

TATA SONS LTD,MUMBAI vs. CIT 2, MUMBAI

ITA 3468/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2024AY 2009-10
Section 100Section 263Section 48

diminution of liability in respect of unpaid share capital or payment to any shareholder of any paid up share capital, the provision of Section 101(2) shall not be applicable. However the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at New Delhi, sanctioning the Scheme shall be deemed

DY CIT , CIRCLE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 287/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2004-05
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

provision of Section 1042) in its correct perspective and thereby has arrived at erroneous conclusion. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 101(2) would apply 5. only if the undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In the present

DY CIT , CIRCLE-8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 286/MUM/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2022AY 2003-04
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

provision of Section 1042) in its correct perspective and thereby has arrived at erroneous conclusion. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 101(2) would apply 5. only if the undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In the present

DCIT - 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY AND SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3247/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 1042) in its correct perspective and thereby has arrived at erroneous conclusion. 5. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 101(2) would apply only if the undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In the present matter

DCIT - 8(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3032/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 1042) in its correct perspective and thereby has arrived at erroneous conclusion. 5. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 101(2) would apply only if the undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In the present matter

SIEMENS TECHNOLOGY & SERVICES PVT. LTD.(ERSTWHILE KNOWN AS SIEMENS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CIRCLE -8(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2947/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: P.J. Pardiwala &For Respondent: Ashok Kumar Kardam
Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Section 1042) in its correct perspective and thereby has arrived at erroneous conclusion. 5. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Section 101(2) would apply only if the undertaking is not formed by splitting up or reconstruction of the business already in existence. In the present matter

Section 101(2) — 7 judgments | BharatTax | BharatTax