← All Phrases

“Section 14(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 14Section 14(1)152 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 14(1) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 14(1)

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
204 ITR 631 · 1993 · Supreme Court
197
citing judgments

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

Verizon Communications Singapore Pte Ltd. v. ITO
361 ITR 575 · 2014 · High Court
156
citing judgments

Payments for the use of equipment or copyrighted articles constitute royalty income under section 9(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act, necessitating TDS deduction under section 195 and attracting disallowance under section 40(a)(i) for non-compliance.

CIT v. ITI Ltd.
313 ITR 1 · 2009 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

An employer is not statutorily obligated to collect evidence from employees regarding the actual utilization of amounts paid towards leave travel concession or conveyance allowance, unless specific requirements are mandated by law or a CBDT circular.

Fakir Mohmed Haji Hasan v. CIT
247 ITR 290 · 2001 · High Court
136
citing judgments

Income deemed under sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, or 69C of the Income-tax Act is a distinct category, separate from regular heads of income under Section 14, and losses from other heads, including business losses, cannot be set off against such deemed income.

Judgments citing Section 14(1)

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5388/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5387/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5386/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. University of Mumbai, Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the connected appeals also stands dismissed

ITA 5385/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Respondent: “1. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred
Section 10Section 11(1)(a)Section 14(1)Section 250

NFAC is justified in ignoring the Assessing Officer's 3 ITA No. 5385-5390/Mum/2025 adoption of the 75% benchmark as derived from section 14(1) of the Comptroller & Auditor General (CAG) Act, 1971, as a reasonable test to determine "substantial financing". 4. "On the facts and circumstances ... /Mum/2025 only 19% of its expenditure as government grant which cannot be said as substantially financed by the Government. 6. Further, as per section 14(1) of C & AG Act 1971, substantially financed means not less than 75% of the expenditure of the assessee which is the only Central Govt

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2087/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, California vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2022-23 is allowed for 14

ITA 2086/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. S. Nethrapal, CIT DR
Section 115ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234BSection 270ASection 9

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “D”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-VI, Kanpur vs. Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 779/LKW/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Commercial Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax-5, Kanpur 84/105, Kailash Motors Building, G.T. Road, Afim Kothi, Kanpur-208003 Pan: Aaccc4267E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: [ This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit (A)- 2, Kanpur Dated 25.09.2017, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y. 2006-07 On 23.12.2008. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 5,32,366/- U/S 14A Without Taken Into Consideration That The Expenditure Incurred In Relation To Exempt Income. 02. That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 99,56,258/-Without Appreciating That The Provisions Of Sec. 50C Have Been Invoked By The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Stamp Valuation Of The Property. The Assessee Has Not Claimed Before The Assessing Office To Make The Reference To The Valuation Officer U/S 55A Of It Act, 1961. 3 That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 3,20,90,164/- On Account Of Loss Claimed On Sale Of Shares Without Appreciating That The Transaction As Claimed Were Sham & Was Incorporated Only To Evade The Capital Gain Earned On The Sale Of Properties. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Ignoring The Facts Noted By The Assessing Officer Regarding The Transaction Of Sale Of Shares.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(24)(X)Section 41(1)Section 50CSection 55A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW ‘A’ BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Ltd, Thane

ITA 1558/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Special Bench, Chennai, dated 13 April 2023. It was pointed out that, upon such admission, the moratorium contemplated under section 14(1) of the Code came into immediate effect, thereby suspending all proceedings against the corporate debtor, including those before judicial, quasi-judicial, or arbitral authorities ... that the application of the financial creditor under section 7(5) of the Code has been admitted, and that the moratorium stipulated under section 14(1) has commenced from the very date of that order. The relevant portion of the NCLT’s direction reads as under: “Based on the above

ACIT-6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Nirjala Teleholdings Limited, Thane

ITA 1557/MUM/2025[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Judicial, Quasi-Judicial, Or Arbitral Authorities. 3. We Have Carefully Perused The Said Order Of The Nclt. Paragraph 40 Thereof Makes It Abundantly Clear That The Application Of The Financial Creditor Under Section 7(5) Of The Code Has Been Admitted & That The Moratorium Stipulated Under Section 14(1) Has Commenced From The Very Date Of That Order. The Relevant Portion Of The Nclt’S Direction Reads As Under:

Section 14(1)Section 143(3)Section 7Section 7(5)

Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Special Bench, Chennai, dated 13 April 2023. It was pointed out that, upon such admission, the moratorium contemplated under section 14(1) of the Code came into immediate effect, thereby suspending all proceedings against the corporate debtor, including those before judicial, quasi-judicial, or arbitral authorities ... that the application of the financial creditor under section 7(5) of the Code has been admitted, and that the moratorium stipulated under section 14(1) has commenced from the very date of that order. The relevant portion of the NCLT’s direction reads as under: “Based on the above

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Double Plus Software P.Ltd, Nedw Delhi

ITA 4745/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

No.4745/Del/2018 Double Plus Software Pvt. Ltd. family had become final. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also noted the fact that section 14(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 expressly debars the imposition of tax on any part of the income of an HUF received

Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Satara vs. Assessing Officer, Ward 3, Satara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1796/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1796/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ananda Gorakhanath Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. At Post Ambawade, Khatav, Satara- 415506. Pan : Blhpp6081R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri R. C. Doshi : Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant By Refusing To Condone The Delay Of 26 Days On Grounds Of Period Of Limitation, Notwithstanding The Fact That Appellant Has Submitted The Application & Explained The Reasons For Delay.

For Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 184ASection 4

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Ankur Jain, ACIT(OSD), Range -10, ITO C.R Building vs. Goodluck Carbon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3929/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 178Section 7

Code. The necessary consequences of imposing the moratorium flows from 2|Page ITA No.3929/Del/ 2023 & C.O. No. 39/Del/2024 the provisions of Section 14(1)(a), (b), (c) & (d) of the Code. Thus, the following prohibitions are imposed: (a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 486/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Grand Venezia Commercial Vs. Acit, Towers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-2, 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcg5999A

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, CIT-DR (on rotational duty)
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 153CSection 238

Private Limited reported in 88 taxmann.com 202 (SC) had held that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated after imposition of the moratorium under section 14(1)(a) of IBC 2016 had come into effect and it would not be appropriate in law and could not have been allowed to continue

Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT(Central Circle)- 2, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3817/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Grand Venezia Commercial Vs. Acit, Towers Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-2, 28, Raja Garden, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcg5999A

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Khurana, CIT-DR (on rotational duty)
Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 153CSection 238

Private Limited reported in 88 taxmann.com 202 (SC) had held that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated after imposition of the moratorium under section 14(1)(a) of IBC 2016 had come into effect and it would not be appropriate in law and could not have been allowed to continue

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nimitya Hotels & Resort Ltd., Delhi

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 1719/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Yanoranjan Nayak, ARFor Respondent: Shri Baljeet Kaur, CIT(DR)
Section 14Section 14(1)Section 7(5)

accordingly, moratorium is declared) in terms of Section 14 of the Code. As a necessary consequence of the moratorium in terms of Section 14(1) (a), (b), (c) & (d), the following prohibitions are imposed, which must be followed by all and sundry: "(a) The institution of suits or continuation

JCIT(OSD), Cir-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (India) Ltd, Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1225/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

count. 6.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 6.4 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that :- • As per section 14(1) of the Act only those expenses which have a proximate nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed under section

Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd., ( Formerly Known As Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nand Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 391Section 45

count. 6.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee is now in appeal before us. 6.4 Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that :- • As per section 14(1) of the Act only those expenses which have a proximate nexus with the exempt income can be disallowed under section

Parveen, Vpo Khanda Kheri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar

ITA 4745/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble(As) & Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

No.4745/Del/2018 Double Plus Software Pvt. Ltd. family had become final. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court also noted the fact that section 14(1) of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922 expressly debars the imposition of tax on any part of the income of an HUF received