← All Phrases

“Section 2(18)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(18)(b)9 judgments

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S AADHAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed

ITA 2649/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Asst. Cit Aadhaar Wholesale Trading & Room No. 533, Aayakar Bhawan, Distribution Ltd. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Knowledge House Shyam Nagar, Vs. J V Link Road, Jogeshwari (E), S.O., Mumbai-400 060 Pan/Gir No. Aafca 8793 G (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mani & Prateek Jain Respondent By : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Date Of Hearing : 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024

For Appellant: Shri Mani & Prateek JainFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia
Section 143(3)Section 2(18)Section 2(18)(b)Section 56(2)(viib)

applicable over the assessee. The assessee particularly referred to the definition of ‘Company in which public are substantially interested’ as provided in section 2(18)(b)(B)(c) of the Act, according to which a company ( say ‘X’ company) in which more than 50% shares are held throughout the year ... company as per section 2(71) of the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds 70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant company with

DCIT, CIRCLE- 20(2), NEW DELHI vs. QUIPPO ENERGY (P) LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4120/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4120/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Dcit, Quippo Energy (P) Ltd., D-2, 5Th Floor, Southern Park, Circle 20(2), Vs. New Delhi. Saket Place, New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacq1675Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 79

I.T.A.No.4120/Del/2017 public company listed on recognized stock exchange) throughout the previous year under consideration. Since the condition as per provisions of Section 2(18)(b) of the Act are satisfied in the case of the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is not a private company and provisions

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2653/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2011-12
For Respondent: \nShri. Madhur Agrawal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2651/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2013-14
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2650/MUM/2023[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2646/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

ACIT, MUMBAI vs. AADHAAR WHOLESALE TRADING AND DISTRIBUTION LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of revenue are dismissed and cross\nobjection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2635/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2024AY 2012-13
For Appellant: \nShri. Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: \nShri. Ajay Chandra &
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

company as per section 2(71)\nof the Companies Act, 2013 or Sec 3(1)(c) of the Companies Act,\n1956. As per section 2(18)(b)(B) of the 1. T. Act, 1961, FVIL holds\n70% of the shares as well as voting rights in the appellant\ncompany with ... public are substantially interested a\ncompany is said to be a company in which the Public are\nsubstantially interested-\n6.4 The provisions of section 2(18)(b)(B) of the I. T. Act, 1961 are as\nunder\nb) if it a company which is not a private company as defined

THR INFRASTRUCTURE PTE LTD,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CIR.-3(1)(1), INTL TAX, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/DEL/2022[201-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2023

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

listed company on a recognized stock exchange of Singapore. In this connection, the Assessee seeks to draw support from the provisions of section 2(18)(B)(c) of the Act, which provides that the wholly owned subsidiary of a listed company would be regarded as "a company in which public ... regarded as a listed company on a recognized stock exchange of Singapore. Further, assessee in support drew a reference of provisions of section 2(18)(B)(c) of the Act and placed reliance on decision of IT AT, Pune bench in the case of Daimler Chrysler India

M/S. BIRLA EDUTECH LTD. ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1915/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vipul JainFor Respondent: Shri Chetan Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(18)Section 3Section 79

shares (ie. 86.67%) on 06.02.2012 which was continuously held by them till 31.03.2012. According to Ld. AR, as per the provisions of Section 2(18)(b) of the Act, since Birla Shloka Edutech Ltd. [M/s. BSEL) was a listed company and was holding more than 50% of the paid