Section 2(23) — 44 judgments | BharatTax

GAURIKA MULTITRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PCIT, MUMBAI-8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(23)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 326/AHD/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes ... against the firm which have been prescribed, which distinguishes a firm from its partners as separate entity. Therefore, the contention that section 2(23) gives meaning to firm, partner and partnership as defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, does not, in any way, effect, take-away or exclude

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 325/AHD/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes ... against the firm which have been prescribed, which distinguishes a firm from its partners as separate entity. Therefore, the contention that section 2(23) gives meaning to firm, partner and partnership as defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, does not, in any way, effect, take-away or exclude

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 250/AHD/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes ... against the firm which have been prescribed, which distinguishes a firm from its partners as separate entity. Therefore, the contention that section 2(23) gives meaning to firm, partner and partnership as defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, does not, in any way, effect, take-away or exclude

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 249/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes ... against the firm which have been prescribed, which distinguishes a firm from its partners as separate entity. Therefore, the contention that section 2(23) gives meaning to firm, partner and partnership as defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, does not, in any way, effect, take-away or exclude

SAI KRUPA DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CEN. CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal 1 to 4 of the Department is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal & Shri S.V. AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 153CSection 234BSection 44A

individual partners would be in their individual capacity. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal made the following observations in this regard: “Under section 2(23) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the firm and partnership have the meaning as assigned to them in Indian Partnership Act, 1932, but also includes ... against the firm which have been prescribed, which distinguishes a firm from its partners as separate entity. Therefore, the contention that section 2(23) gives meaning to firm, partner and partnership as defined in the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, does not, in any way, effect, take-away or exclude

ITO-26-(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SHARADA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stand dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1417/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey&F Shri Amarjit Singhito-26(2)(1), Vs. M/S Sharada Enterprises, Room No. 127, 1 St Floor, 84-A, Mittal Court, 224, G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan, Nariman Point, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aamts9429H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Nimesh VoraFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(23)Section 5

neither an individual, nor a 'body corporate' to be regarded as partner of the LLP Devanshi Commercials LLP, hence in view of section 2(23)(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act read with section 5 of the LLP Act 2008, the assessee is not eligible to be regarded

ACIT, CC- 30, NEW DELHI vs. J H JEWELLERS LLP, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 809/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & M.Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 The Dcit, Central Circle-30, New Delhi M/S. J H Jewellers Llp, 13, Sunder Nagar Market, Kasturba Vs. Nagar, South East, Delhi 110003 Pan Aacfj 3285 G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue: Shri Waseem Arshad, Cit(Dr) For Assessee: Shri U.N Marwah, Ca Shri Parveen Goel, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2023 Order Per Chandra Mohan Garg, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Cit(A)-30, New Delhi Dated 25.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Grounds Have Been Raised By The Revenue Are As Follows:- 1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts In Deleting The Rs.11,24,76,000/- Additions Of Rs. 32,50,00,000/- Made U/S 68 Of The It Act 1961. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case Considering That As Per The Balance Sheet Of These Companies As On 31.03.2016, The Said Fund Were Available In The Balance Sheet Of All The Four Companies Under The Head "Cash & Cash Equivalents" As On 31.03.2015 Which Are Now Reflected In Current Investment In I.E. Investment As Capital In The Appellant Firm As On31.03.2016. Further, Relying On The Submission Of The Assessee That The Said Four Companies Introduced Funds In The Ay 2008-09, The Case Of Maharaja Tie Up, Dynamic Enclave & Shivshakti Commercial Pt Ltd Were Assessed W/S 147 Of The Act For A.Y. 2008-09 Accepting The Share Capital/Share Premium.

For Appellant: Shri U.N Marwah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, CIT(DR)

Section 68

certificate of change of registered office and copy of assessment order for AY 2008-09. The ld. AR submitted that as per section 2(23) clause (i) of the Act “firm” shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Indian Partnership Act 1932 and shall also include a limited ... present case of LLP entity by the could not controvert the factual and legal position that as per clause (i) of section 2(23) of the Act. The partnership firm shall include LLP entity and thus similar to partnership for the purposed of the application of the Act and relevant

J.B.CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2009/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

would be treated as branch transfers. It was observed as under : "20. As already noted, the term 'sale' has been defined under section 2(23) of the Act. Upon the High Court sanctioning the scheme for amalgamation, the effective date of amalgamation would be the date mentioned in the scheme

J.B.CHEMICALS & PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT -CC -2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2008/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

would be treated as branch transfers. It was observed as under : "20. As already noted, the term 'sale' has been defined under section 2(23) of the Act. Upon the High Court sanctioning the scheme for amalgamation, the effective date of amalgamation would be the date mentioned in the scheme

J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4657/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

would be treated as branch transfers. It was observed as under : "20. As already noted, the term 'sale' has been defined under section 2(23) of the Act. Upon the High Court sanctioning the scheme for amalgamation, the effective date of amalgamation would be the date mentioned in the scheme

J.B. CHEMICALS AND PHARMACEUTICAL LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4656/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 234ASection 234CSection 35

would be treated as branch transfers. It was observed as under : "20. As already noted, the term 'sale' has been defined under section 2(23) of the Act. Upon the High Court sanctioning the scheme for amalgamation, the effective date of amalgamation would be the date mentioned in the scheme

TRAVELPORT LP,GEORGIA USA vs. DCIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION CIRCLE-3(1)(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 6503/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Kumar – CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144C(13)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234C

partnership. In fact, the Department has allotted PAN to the assessee in the status of a partnership firm. The definition of firm under section 2(23) of the Act includes a limited liability partnership. Further, in the draft assessment order passed under section 144C of the Act for the assessment