← All Phrases

“Section 2(12)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(12)25 judgments

ARCHNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 52(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2841/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaarchna Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 52(1) Office No. 8, First Floor, Civic Centre, Scindia House, Cannaught Minto Road Place, Delhi – 110001 New Delhi - 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipm7190F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Guarav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

P a g e | 1 Archna Chadha (AY: 2016-17) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 400/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 399/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment ... Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 398/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment ... Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 397/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner\nof these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019\nin terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted\nthat Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having\ncreditworthiness for investment

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

ITA 396/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner of these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019 in terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted that Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having creditworthiness for investment

OM PRAKASH GUPTA,SAWAI MADHOPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -1, JAIPUR

ITA 395/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR &
Section 153ASection 69

Beneficial Owner of these properties vide order u/s 24(4) of PBPT Act 1998 dated 30.4.2019 in terms of the provisions of section 2(12) of PBPT Act 1998. He also noted that Shri Ram Singh Meena is a man of little means and not having creditworthiness for investment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3816/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GATEWAY DISTRIPARKS LIMITED, ANDHRA PRADESH

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3815/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

LATE GURMUKH SINGH BALI, THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE RAGHUBIR SINGH BALI,NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 54(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 848/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 2(29)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\nDELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

LATE GURMUKH SINGH BALI, THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE RAGHUBIR SINGH BALI,NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 54(1), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA 840/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 2(29)

{ "clean_text": "IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,\nDELHI BENCH: ‘B' NEW DELHI\nBEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AMPLUS ENERGY SOLUTIONS PTE LTD,MALAYSIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE INTERNATIONAL TAX 1(1)(1), CIVIC CENTER, DELHI

ITA 3370/DEL/2023[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025
Section 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194L

debenture' is nowhere defined under the Act. However, the\nCompanies Act, 1956 specifically defines this term and as per the definition\nprovided in section 2(12) of the said statute, 'bond' is covered under the\nexpression 'debenture'. [Para 3]\nThe Kerala High Court in CIT v. Cochin Refineries ... which this term is\nunderstood. [Para 4]\nThus, it would be appropriate to rely upon the definition of 'debenture' as\ncontained in section 2(12) and, therefore, it could not be held that the\nassessee contravened the provisions of section 13(1)(d). [Para 5]''\nThus with regard

AMPLUS ENERGY SOLUTIONS PTE LTD,SINGAPORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

ITA 2417/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2020-21 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs Acit, Ltd., Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), #02-00, Robinson Road, New Delhi. Singapore – 688898 Pan: Aadci8182P Assessment Year: 2021-22 Amplus Energy Solutions Pte Vs. Acit, Ltd., Malaysia, Circle International Tax 1(1)(1), Level 56, Tower-1, Petronas New Delhi. Twin Towers, Kuala Lumpur City Centre, 50088, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia/ 6Th Floor, Emaar Mgf, The Palm Square, Golf Course Ext. Road, Sector-66, Gurgaon – 122 102. Pan: Aadci8182P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate & Ms Shruti Khimta, Ar Revenue By : Ms Ekta Jain, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Ekta Jain, CIT-DR
Section 115ASection 115A(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 194LSection 3

debenture' is nowhere defined under the Act. However, the Companies Act, 1956 specifically defines this term and as per the definition provided in section 2(12) of the said statute, 'bond' is covered under the expression 'debenture'. [Para 3] The Kerala High Court in CIT v. Cochin Refineries ... held that in the absence of any definition of 'debenture' in the Act, reliance could be placed upon the definition given in section 2(12) and also the common parlance in which this term is understood. [Para 4] Thus, it would be appropriate to rely upon the definition of 'debenture

PRADEEP WIG,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5, NEW DELHI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 406/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharma

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV

SIRAJ AHMED SHAH,MUMBAI vs. WARD 42 (1) (4) AND CIT, MUMBAI

Accordingly, the Grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3815/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, AR
Section 250Section 801ASection 801A(4)Section 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU, BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 718/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

bonds or debentures. Both those concepts have a well settled connotation in law, particularly in the provisions of the Companies' Act, 1956. Section 2(12) of the Companies' Act, 1956 defines the expression "debenture" to include debenture stock bonds and any other securities of a company, whether constituting a charge ... expression "bond" is often used indiscriminately to cover both bonds and debentures. As a matter of fact, the Companies' Act, 1956 in Section 2(12) defines 'debenture' to include debenture stock bonds and any other securities of a company, whether or not they constitute a charge on the assets

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BENGALURU vs. ENZEN GLOBAL SOLUTIONS PVT LTD, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 696/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri V Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250

bonds or debentures. Both those concepts have a well settled connotation in law, particularly in the provisions of the Companies' Act, 1956. Section 2(12) of the Companies' Act, 1956 defines the expression "debenture" to include debenture stock bonds and any other securities of a company, whether constituting a charge ... expression "bond" is often used indiscriminately to cover both bonds and debentures. As a matter of fact, the Companies' Act, 1956 in Section 2(12) defines 'debenture' to include debenture stock bonds and any other securities of a company, whether or not they constitute a charge on the assets

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), , VISAKHAPATNAM vs. GATEWAY EAST INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri Fenil Amit Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80I

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल

TATA STEEL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1316/MUM/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

connection with the PNDC. The details of the same are attached in 'Annexure A'. 3. The term Debenture has been defined in the section 2(12) of the Companies Act, 1956 as "debenture" includes debenture stock, bonds and any other securities of the company, whether constituting a charge

TATA STEEL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI-2, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1315/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

connection with the PNDC. The details of the same are attached in 'Annexure A'. 3. The term Debenture has been defined in the section 2(12) of the Companies Act, 1956 as "debenture" includes debenture stock, bonds and any other securities of the company, whether constituting a charge

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2