← All Phrases

“Section 101(2)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 101(2) is Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT (101 ITR 234), cited in 323 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 101(2)

Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. CIT
101 ITR 234 · 1975 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

This case defines 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act as systematic instruction, schooling, or training given to the young for preparation for the work of life. It clarifies that 'education' in this context has a narrow meaning, not extending to every acquisition of further knowledge.

Huawei Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. v. JCIT
101 Taxmann.com 313 · 2019 · ITAT
67
citing judgments

Working capital adjustments are permissible and crucial for comparability analysis when determining the arm's length price of international transactions, especially when an assessee's claim for such adjustment has been denied.

Anglo French Textile Company Ltd. v. CIT
23 ITR 101 · 1953 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

Profits attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India can be conservatively estimated, such as by applying a percentage of global profits to Indian sales, when the PE's activities in India are minimal.

India in Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Circle 1(2) v. M/s. M.R. Shah Logistics Private Limited
14 SCC 101 · 2022 · Reported
16
citing judgments

Issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, should be upheld unless there are compelling reasons to deviate from the established legal precedent set by the Supreme Court in this case.

2004) 267 ITR 698 (Raj) 5. Paul Mathews & Sons v CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v. Arvind Jewellers
253 ITR 124 · 2002 · High Court
13
citing judgments

A revisionary order under Section 263 is invalid if it is based on the same facts and involves extensive enquiry after the assessment proceedings were completed, implying a lack of application of mind during the original assessment.

CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker) 6. CIT v Arvind Jewellers (2003) 259 ITR 502 (Guj) 7. CIT v. Hastings Properties
247 ITR 555 · 2001 · High Court
11
citing judgments

A Principal Commissioner (PCIT) cannot assume jurisdiction under Section 263 merely because the Assessing Officer's (AO) view is not acceptable, if the AO has made due enquiries and taken a plausible view.

1975) 101 ITR 234 (SC), Assam Text Book Production & Publication Corporation Limited v. CIT
244 CTR 667 · 2000 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Generating profits from publishing and selling school textbooks does not automatically disqualify an entity from being considered engaged in 'education' under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act.

464 (SC), Commissioner of Income-tax-I v. Sarwankumar Sharma
49 Taxmann.com 101 · 2014 · High Court
10
citing judgments

An addition under section 69A is confirmed when the assessee fails to provide documentary proof for the source of cash deposits, such as from business or trading activities.

Judgments citing Section 101(2)

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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