← All Phrases

“Section 2(31)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(31)183 judgments

PRATIBHA SINGH,SHIMLA vs. ACIT CIRCLE, CIRCLE SHIMLA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 860/CHANDI/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court. The Hon’Ble High Court Upheld The Validity Of Assumption Of Jurisdiction Holding That The Assessing Officer Possessed

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Aman Singhi, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

rightly been taxed as unexplained income by attributing the rigors of Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. By virtue of Section 2(31), the definition of a person has been laid down by the legislature. A perusal of Section 2(31) would go to reveal that ... been furnished. 26. Further, it is an undisputed proposition that a Hindu Undivided Family is a separate taxable entity within the meaning of section 2(31) of the Act. However, the mere existence of an HUF does not automatically establish that an asset standing in the name of an individual

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MANIKANDAN, CHENNAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL\n'C' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ\nश्री एबी

ZELIANT CORP,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 36(1), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2201/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144(1)(b)Section 144ASection 153(1)Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(iv)Section 250Section 282Section 69A

existence w.e.f. 31.07.2025 through a\ndeed of partnership executed on that date between two partners Sh.\nApurv Jain and Shlshu Sharma. As per Section 2(31)(iv) of the Act, the\nappellant being a firm is assessable entity and assessment has been\ncarried out in the status of AOP wrongly

ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. KUWAIT INVESTMENT AUTHORITY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5351/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

recorded\ndetailed findings after considering:\nthe statutory constitution of KIA under Kuwaiti law;\nthe definitions of \"person” and “company\" under sections 2(31)\nand 2(17) of the Act;\njudicial interpretations of the expression “body corporate\";\nthe decision of the Tribunal in Royal Jordanian Airlines\n(supra); and\nthe consistent ... that in identical circumstances and for earlier assessment years, KIA had consistently been treated as a non-resident corporate entity.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": ["Section 2(31) of the Act", "Section 2(17) of the Act"], "issues": "The issue was whether the assessee should be assessed as a trust, as indicated

ITO-22(1)(6), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ARCIL RETAIL LOAN PORTFOLIO- 001- A- TRUST, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the order of the learned CIT(A) is affirmed, and\nthe appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4252/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 164Section 2(31)Section 250Section 61Section 63

joined in a\ncommon purpose of earning income. According to the AO, the\nassessee constituted an Association of Persons within the\nmeaning of section 2(31) of the Act. The AO further held that the\ntrust was neither revocable nor determinate, that the provisions\nof section 164 were attracted

SHRIRAM FINANCE LTD.,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, , CHENNAI-

ITA 2043/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2043/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2022-23 Shriram Finance Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of [Since Shriram City Union Finance Income Tax – 3, Limited Amalgamated With Shriram Chennai. Transport Finance Co. Limited & Presently Known As Shriram Finance Limited], Sri Towers, Plot No. 14A, South Phase, Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aaacs7018R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri R. Sivaraman, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri C.N. Bipin, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.05.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax – 3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2022-23 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri R. Sivaraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri C.N. Bipin, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 234DSection 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 4

Companies Act, 1956, the amalgamating company ceased to exist. Thereafter, it cannot be regarded as a “person” within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the IT Act, 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an assessment order be passed. This was because prior to the date

ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED,KANURU vs. ITO, TDS, WARD(1), ELURU, ELURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/VIZ/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam03 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.29/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year:2019-20) Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Civil The Income Tax Officer (Tds)-Ward-1 Eluru – 534001 Supplies Corporation Limited Andhra Pradesh 10-152/1, 4Th Floor Sai Towers, Ashok Nagar Bandar Road, Kanuru – 520007 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Aabca7161R]

Section 154Section 201(1)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रिीश

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AMD TRUST CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST , CHENNA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1471/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

hands of the Managing Trustee cannot be clubbed with that of the Trust, while both of them are distinctly identifiable persons as per Section 2(31) of the Act. 20.3 It was further held by him that though there was a total disclosure of Rs.325.00 crores originally, by the letter

M/S. SRI BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee and that of the Department are dismissed

ITA 1249/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1249/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Acit, Charitable Public Trust, Vs. Central Circle 3(4), No. 60, First Avenue, Chennai. Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (&'थ"/Respondent) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1471/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, M/S. Sri Balaji Educational & Central Circle 3(4), Vs. Charitable Public Trust, Chennai. No. 60, First Avenue, Jai Durga Complex, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083. Tamil Nadu. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) [Pan: Aacts-1386-D] (&'थ"/Respondent) िनधा$)रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Shri. Y.Sridhar, Fca राज4 की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri. Y.Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 245D(4)Section 250

hands of the Managing Trustee cannot be clubbed with that of the Trust, while both of them are distinctly identifiable persons as per Section 2(31) of the Act. 20.3 It was further held by him that though there was a total disclosure of Rs.325.00 crores originally, by the letter

SHRI K.G SUBBARAMA SETTY ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) BANGALORE, C R BUILDING

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

assessee is not at all acceptable as the partnership firm & partners are two separate & distinct person in the eyes of the income tax. Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm

K A SUJIT CHANDAN,BENGALURU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE BENGALURU.-5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

assessee is not at all acceptable as the partnership firm & partners are two separate & distinct person in the eyes of the income tax. Section 2(31) of the Act define person to include an individual as well as a firm. Therefore, merely because the land was acquired from the firm

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2394/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2393/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.R. BhagwatFor Respondent: \nShri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 189Section 189(1)Section 189(2)Section 69A

{ "clean_text": "आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE\nBEFORE SHRI

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1271/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section 2(31) of the 1961 Act is an amendment of the law or is\nmerely declaratory of the law that was in force earlier. To pronounce

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSHAKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in I

ITA 1264/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section 2(31) of the 1961 Act is an amendment of the law or is\nmerely declaratory of the law that was in force earlier. To pronounce

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. JAGATHRAKSKAN SRINISHA, CHENNAI

ITA 1253/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 154Section 270A

assessee-firm. In the 1961 Act the expression 'person' is\ndefined differently. It is a matter for consideration whether the definition\ncontained in section 2(31) of the 1961 Act is an amendment of the law or is\nmerely declaratory of the law that was in force earlier. To pronounce

SEEMA SUREKA,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2682/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

first discuss as to what\nconstitute 'HUF (Hindu Undivided Family). The 'HUF has been included within the meaning\nof word 'person' in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as a separate taxable entity but\n'HUF has not been defined in the Income Tax Act, whereby ... would\nhave clearly mentioned as such. At this stage, it is also essential to remind\nourselves that the definition of “person” as per section 2(31) of the Act,\nrecognizes the “HUF” as a distinct entity from “an individual”. Thus, the\nGyanchand M. Bardia case of AY 2012-13 (supra

M/S R C JEWELLERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-32 NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1971/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi03 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 234ASection 270A

other person” is concerned, we are afraid that the Assessing Officer is nowhere covered in the statutory definition of a person prescribed in section 2(31) of the Act in (i) to (vii) r.w. Explanation thereto which includes an individual, an HUF, a company............ Case law Brandix Mauritius Holdings ... found to be binding precedents since having not considered the foregoing stipulation of “to the assessee or any other person” in light of section 2(31) of the Act. Learned CIT-DR also refers to Commissioner Vs. Dilip Kumar & Co. (2018) 9 SCC 1 (SC) (FB) and para

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BENGALURU

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

amalgamating company loses its entity.\"\n(iv) Fourthly, upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot\nbe regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom\nassessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed;\n(v) Fifthly, a notice under Section ... case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was\nrequired to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person\ncontemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical\nperson ceases to exist then it would not be construed as a person within\nthe meaning

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S TRISHUL DEVELOPERS, BANGALORE

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

amalgamating company loses its entity.\"\n(iv) Fourthly, upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot\nbe regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom\nassessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed;\n(v) Fifthly, a notice under Section ... case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was\nrequired to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person\ncontemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical\nperson ceases to exist then it would not be construed as a person within\nthe meaning

Showing 1–20 of 183 · Page 1 of 10

...