Section 2(7A) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 2(7A) is CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd. (318 ITR 116), cited in 64 of the 56 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(7A)

CIT v. Mahalaxmi Glass Works (P) Ltd.
318 ITR 116 · 2009 · High Court
64
citing judgments

When the valuation of closing stock is adjusted to include CENVAT or Modvat credit under Section 145A, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock.

CIT v. Mahavir Alluminium Ltd.
297 ITR 77 · 2008 · High Court
58
citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer revalues the closing stock, the opening stock must also be revalued on the same basis to ensure consistency in the method of accounting and proper computation of business income.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Central Bank of India
232 Taxmann 396 · 2015 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by a company to maintain its status as a company, rather than for earning specific income like dividends, cannot be allocated for disallowance under Section 14A.

Mega Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT
155 ITD 1019 · 2015 · ITAT
24
citing judgments

An assessment order passed without a valid order of transfer under Section 120(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is void and without jurisdiction.

1. Mega Corporation v. Addl. CIT
62 Taxmann.com 351 · 2015 · High Court
18
citing judgments

An assessment order passed by an officer not authorized under Section 127, or without proper authorization, is void. The Additional Commissioner is an Assessing Officer only if directed under Section 2(7A) read with other relevant provisions.

Cosmat Traders (P.) Ltd. v. ITO
128 Taxmann.com 174 · 2021 · Reported
16
citing judgments

An assessment is invalid if it is made without a valid notice issued by the Assessing Officer with the correct jurisdiction. Jurisdiction assumed solely based on PAN data may not be valid.

Eicher Motors Ltd. v. Union of India
8 SCC 361 · 2002 · Reported
16
citing judgments

A credit under the MODVAT scheme is considered equivalent to tax paid, meaning it can be treated as such in accounting.

CIT v. Wipro Finance Ltd.
323 ITR 467 · 2010 · High Court
14
citing judgments

The authorization of a search is distinct from the initiation of a search. A search is initiated only when it has actually commenced or begun.

Wallace Brothers & Co. Ltd. v. CIT
13 ITR 39 · 1945 · Reported
10
citing judgments

The residential status of an assessee is determined by the control and management of its affairs during the previous year in which the income arises. Objections regarding the place of assessment cannot be raised in an appeal against the assessment order under the Income Tax Act.

Smt. Sohani Devi Jain v. ITO
109 ITR 130 · 1977 · High Court
9
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(7A)

Insight Print Communications Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The PCIT, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40