← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(b)7 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(b) is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), cited in 259 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(b)

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).

PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd.
124 Taxmann.com 358 · 2021 · High Court
54
citing judgments

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd. v. CIT
14 ITR 647 · 1946 · High Court
48
citing judgments

A payment of bonus or commission is allowable as a business deduction under Section 36(1)(ii) unless it constitutes a distribution of profits or dividends, thereby distinguishing payments genuinely for services from those merely intended to escape taxation.

Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana)
224 Taxmann 178 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.

Agappa Child Centre v. CIT
226 ITR 211 · 1997 · High Court
33
citing judgments

A trust's exemption is cancelled if its property is used for the benefit of a person prohibited under section 13(3), or if the trust fails to accurately reflect its income, thereby not truly disclosing the income arising from trust property.

DIT (Exemption) v. Girdharilal Shewnarain Tantia Trust
199 ITR 215 · 1993 · High Court
24
citing judgments

The 'income' contemplated by Section 11 is the real income, not merely the assessed or assessable income, and income from property held under trust must be arrived at in a normal commercial manner. This implies that statutory deductions under Section 14 are not applicable when income from property held under trust is excluded.

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax
127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court
21
citing judgments

If agricultural operations are being carried out on land at the time of sale and revenue records indicate it is agricultural land, a presumption arises that it is agricultural in character, which the revenue must rebut. Permission to convert land to non-agricultural use does not render it non-agricultural if not obtained before the sale.

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi
404 ITR 173 · 2018 · High Court
15
citing judgments

If land is recorded as agricultural land in revenue records, it is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, entitling the assessee to exemption from tax.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)(b)

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3633/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

engaged in any business or profession in India. 4.3. In this regard, your kind attention is drawn to the provisions of section 2(14)(b) of the Act which states as follows: "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities in accordance with

Argos Holdings Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int Tax 1(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3632/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 194LSection 1ISection 260Section 6(3)Section 6(3)(ii)

engaged in any business or profession in India. 4.3. In this regard, your kind attention is drawn to the provisions of section 2(14)(b) of the Act which states as follows: "any securities held by a Foreign Institutional Investor which has invested in such securities in accordance with

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

Siddiqui (arial distance) and therefore, it was not agricultural land and under the definition of capital assets, by virtue of the provisions of section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Act, it was a capital asset. Thus, the benefit of section 10(37) was not available to the assessee

Balbir Singh Saini, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2170/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(iiib)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Prabhakar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the addition made by the authorities below is deleted

ITA 2161/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

definition of “Capital Asset” as per Section 2(14) of the Act, these lands are admittedly rural agricultural land particularly in view of Section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Act and not a capital asset and thus cannot be considered for capital gains, as the case made

Bijender Singh Thakran, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Disposal Of The Appeal.” Ground No. 1 & 2:

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 4Section 44ASection 69A

also contended that no submissions have been made by the assessee to controvert the finding of the AO how section 2(14)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of submissions, we note that the AO by passing rectification order ... submission has mentioned that distance 2 kms is only required to be seen while levying LTCG on the sale of land. As per section 2(14)(b), three sub-clauses are there, Clause (1) deals with 2 kms criteria where population is more than 10,000 but not exceeding

Turner Builders & Promoters Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 2(14)(b)

distance of 40 KM. from the municipal limits and any capital gain arising from its sale was exempt within the meaning of Section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“the Act”). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law in confirming the action