← All Phrases

“Section 2(23)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(23)44 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(23) is Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT (23 Taxmann.com 265), cited in 147 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(23)

Krishak Bharati Cooperative Ld v. DCIT
23 Taxmann.com 265 · 2012 · High Court
147
citing judgments

The rule of consistency does not override the correct application of law and should not be applied if it leads to an anomalous outcome.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Rayala Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
386 ITR 500 · 2016 · Supreme Court
89
citing judgments

If an assessee company's main business object is to acquire and rent out properties, the rental income derived is taxable as 'Profits and gains of business or profession', rather than 'Income from house property', as the nature of the activity constitutes a business.

CIT v. Moni Kumar Subba
333 ITR 38 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Notional interest on an interest-free security deposit cannot be considered as actual or deemed rent under Section 23(1) of the Act. For determining Annual Letting Value (ALV) under Section 23(1)(a), it must be in accordance with municipal laws, considering extraneous circumstances, but not exceeding the standard rent as per rent control legislation.

CIT v. Bar Council of Maharashtra
130 ITR 28 · 1981 · Supreme Court
74
citing judgments

An organization’s purpose qualifies as 'general public utility' under section 2(15) if its primary objective is charitable, even if it incidentally benefits a specific group or generates some profit, provided the dominant motive is not profit-making. Such an entity is eligible for exemptions under the Act.

CIT v. Gurnam Singh
327 ITR 278 · 2010 · High Court
66
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Section 54F, the new residential house is not required to be purchased exclusively in the assessee's own name; acquisition in joint names or in the name of a spouse qualifies for the exemption. This principle also applies to Section 54 due to their pari materia nature.

Mrs. Shiela Kaushish v. CIT
131 ITR 435 · 1981 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

Income-tax authorities cannot add notional interest on a tenant's deposit to the income from a house property, as there is no provision for this in Sections 22 or 23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The annual value of a house property is determined by specific provisions within these sections, and not by hypothetical calculations.

CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd.
55 ITR 741 · 1965 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments

A taxing statute must be strictly construed: the subject is not to be taxed unless the charging provision clearly and explicitly imposes the obligation, without room for intendment or implication. There is no equity about a tax, and nothing is to be read into or implied within the language used.

Judgments citing Section 2(23)

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 631/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 630/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 629/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 628/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 627/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Kamlesh Gupta, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1, New Delhi

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed, whereas

ITA 626/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2011-12 With Assessment Year: 2012-13 With Assessment Year: 2013-14 With Assessment Year: 2014-15 With Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs. Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, Central Circle-1, C-4, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi New Ashram, New Delhi Pan :Abcpg9838M (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2009-10 With Assessment Year: 2010-11 With Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

said company in his individual capacity. Further, the assessee submitted, since M/s. Waberton Ltd. is a foreign company under the provisions of section 2(23)A of the Act incorporated outside the territorial jurisdiction, provision of section 4 of the Act would not apply to the said company. The assessee

Imperial Jewels, Mumbai vs. NFAC/DCIT, Cir -24(1), Mumbai

ITA 398/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Samruddhi Dhananjay Hande, D.R
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(15)(b)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 92C

under: 5 M/s. Imperial Jewels 10. So when undisputedly the assessee was classified as a partnership firm and not a foreign company under section 2(23)(A) of the Act the AO was not empowered to pass a draft assessment order under section 144C of the Act. In these circumstances

Radford Global Limited, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 709/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Radford Global Ltd., Vs Adit, Office No.704, Wellington Business Cpc, Park 1, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri Bangalore. East, Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. Pan-Aabcm5771E Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Salvation Outsourcing Solution Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 881/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Salvation Outsourcing Solution Vs Dcit, Pvt.Ltd., 204, Triveni Complex, Cpc, E-10/11/12, Jawahar Park, Bengaluru. Laxmi Nagar, Near Heera Sweets, New Delhi-110045. Pan-Aapcs7922R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Senator Travels Private Limited, New Delhi vs. Itd, CPC, Bengalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 327/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Senator Travels Pvt.Ltd., Vs Itd, 2K, Dcm Building, 16, Cpc, Barakhamba Road, Bengalore. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabcs2702B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 28Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

ACIT, Circle-15(1), New Delhi vs. Lemon Tree Hotel Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1450/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri P.K.Kedia[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit, Vs Lemon Tree Hotels Ltd., Circle-15(1), B-6/17, Safderjung Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi-110029. Pan-Aacck1698R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Princy Singhla, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Mukal Baga, Adv. & Shri Vikas Singh, Ca Date Of Hearing 29.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 04.01.2022

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Respectfully following the same, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby

Active Group Securitas, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1287/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Active Group Securitas, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1286/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Sugandh, Moradabad vs. Itd, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1259/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Sugandh, Vs Itd, Jawahar Market, G.M.D.Road, Cpc, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh-244001. Bengaluru. Pan-Aaefs7109J Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Excel Phosphates Private Limited, Meerut vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1258/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Excel Phosphates Pvt.Ltd., Vs Adit, 195-196, Shatabdi Nagar, Delhi Cpc, Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250103 Bengaluru. Pan-Aacce3927B Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 30.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Dinesh Chandra Semwal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 28(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Abhay Shrivastva, Faridabad vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengalurur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1289/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2021AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Abhay Shrivastva, Vs Dcit, 501, Sears Vth Floor, Sector-86, Cpc, Faridabad, Haryana-121007. Bengaluru. Pan-Bgjps08499B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. Gurjit Singh, Ca Respondent By Sh. Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.12.2021

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above-mentioned binding precedents

Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6267/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2006-07] Digicall Teleservices Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit (Formerly Page Point Services India Central Circle-25 Pvt. Ltd.) D-7, Dhawandeep New Delhi Apartment, 6, Jantar Mantar Road, New Delhi Pan-Aabcp794Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 09.12.2021

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(24)Section 36Section 36(1)(Va)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pro Active Services

Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Bengluru

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 938/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Laurels (India) Impex (P) Ltd. Vs Adit Rra Taxindia D-28, South Extension, Bengaluru, Part-1, New Delhi Karnataka Aaacs9311B Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shrey Jain, Adv Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 143(1)Section 2(23)(x)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Therefore, respectfully following the binding precedents I hereby direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance. 5 9. The appeal

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 7, New Delhi vs. Peregrine Guarding Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 5968/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Addl. Cit, Vs Peregrine Guarding Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-7, Rz-1B, Kapashera Crossing, New Delhi. New Delhi-110037. Pan-Aadcp2498P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Sh. I P S Bindra, Cit Dr Respondent By Sh. Ajay Mangotia, Adv. Date Of Hearing 20.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 24.11.2021

Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(X)Section 37(1)

treat belated payment of Employee’s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee’s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the employer under section 2(23)(x) of the Act.” Respectfully following the same and ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in above-mentioned cases, this