← 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)

Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-3(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini

ITA 646/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 646 To 651/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2013-14) Dcit Cen. Cir-3(4), Mahavir Roads & R. No. 1915, 19Th Floor, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Air India Building, Destination Builidng, 6Th Floor, Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai- Above Mcdonal’S Restaurant, 400 021 Near Ghatkopar Chembur Flyover, Mumbai-400 071 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaecm8166G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Rohan Deshpande, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 08.06.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 22.11.2018, Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals)-51, Mumbai For The Quantum Appeal Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, Ld
Section 13Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 31Section 33Section 7

granted his consent vide letter of authority dated 7th October 2021. 3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that now in view of section 14(1)(a) of IBC, there is a moratorium for institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution

Renaissance Services Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 5677/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2022AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

software and storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking backup copy would amount to copyright work under section 14(1) of the Copyright Act and the payment made for the grant of the licence for the said purpose would constitute royalty. The license granted

Kennametal Inc, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle-1(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal for AY 2014-15 is treated as allowed for statistical purpose while the appeal for AY 2012-13

ITA 35/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(It)A No.35/Bang/2021 Assessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Kennametal Inc., Vs. Acit (International Taxation), C/O. Kennametal India, Circle – 1(2), 8/9Th Mile, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 073. Pan: Aacck 6397 B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 14.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.02.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri. K. R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 9(1)(vi)

acts mentioned in section 14 of the Copyright Act, I957(Copyright Act). in the case of a computer program, section 14(1)) of the Copyright Act, speaks explicitly of two sets of acts: IT(IT)A No.35/Bang/2021 Page 6 of 9 1. The seven acts enumerated in sub-clause

DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Reliance Communication Ltd, Navi Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals are dismissed

ITA 1502/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Jaisani a/wFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi D. Hande, Sr. AR
Section 14Section 250Section 31(1)Section 33Section 9

Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd., [2017] 88 taxmann.com 202 (SC) held that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated after imposition of the moratorium under section 14(1)(a) has come into effect and it is non est in law and could not have been allowed to continue. 5. The learned ... mandate of the new insolvency Code is that the moment an insolvency petition is admitted, the moratorium that comes into effect under Section 14(1)(a) expressly interdicts institution or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against corporate debtors. This legal principle should have been borne in mind

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4128/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Savan Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 144

also declare moratorium in terms of section 14 of the Code. A necessary consequence of the moratorium flows from the provisions of section 14(1)(a),(b), (c) & (d) and thus the following prohibitions are imposed which must be followed by all and sundry :- “(a) the institution of suits

M/S Twenty First Century Wire Rods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 3698/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: HeardITAT Delhi02 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri Savan Saxena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 10Section 14Section 14(1)(a)Section 144

also declare moratorium in terms of section 14 of the Code. A necessary consequence of the moratorium flows from the provisions of section 14(1)(a),(b), (c) & (d) and thus the following prohibitions are imposed which must be followed by all and sundry :- “(a) the institution of suits

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. N G Balu Reddy HUF, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 651/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Chetan R, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 147Section 2(47)(v)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

Ge Intelligent Platforms Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 630/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking back up copy would itself amount to copyright work under section 14(1) of the Act and licence is granted to use the software by making copies, which [would], but for the licence granted, have constituted infringement

Ge Intelligent Platforms Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (International Taxation), Circle-1(3)(1), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 5814/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Prabha Kant, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)Section 90(2)

storing the same in the hard disk of the designated computer and taking back up copy would itself amount to copyright work under section 14(1) of the Act and licence is granted to use the software by making copies, which [would], but for the licence granted, have constituted infringement

Zte Corporation, Gurgaon vs. DCIT (International Taxation), Gurgaon

ITA 1930/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2017-18
Section 133A

This analysis is to show that what was conveyed to its customers by the assessee bears a close resemblance to goods significantly enough, Section 14(1) talks of sale or rental of a "copy". The question of conveying or parting with copyright in the software itself would mean that

Zte Corporation, China vs. JCIT (OSD) International Taxation, Gurgaon

ITA 1474/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
Section 133A

This analysis is to show that what was conveyed to its customers by the assessee bears a close resemblance to goods significantly enough, Section 14(1) talks of sale or rental of a "copy". The question of conveying or parting with copyright in the software itself would mean that

DCIT, Int. Tax., .Circle Gurgaon, Gurgaon vs. Zte Corporation, China

ITA 8185/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
Section 133A

This analysis is to show that what was conveyed to its customers by the assessee bears a close resemblance to goods significantly enough, Section 14(1) talks of sale or rental of a "copy". The question of conveying or parting with copyright in the software itself would mean that