← All Phrases

“Section 2(74)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(74)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(74) is Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society (392 ITR 74), cited in 762 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(74)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. v. Totagars Cooperative Sale Society
392 ITR 74 · 2017 · High Court
762
citing judgments

Interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments or surplus deposits with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

CIT v. Hariprasad & Company Pvt. Ltd.
99 ITR 118 · 1975 · Supreme Court
78
citing judgments

The terms 'income' or 'profits and gains' are inclusive of losses, signifying that losses are 'minus income' to be factored into the computation of taxable income. Therefore, set-off and carry forward provisions for losses apply exclusively to taxable income or gains and cannot be pressed into service against non-taxable gains, such as those exempt under a DTAA or other specific provisions.

DCIT v. Panna Corporation
74 DTR 89 · 2012 · High Court
67
citing judgments

When unaccounted cash or on-money receipts are detected, only the profit element embedded in such receipts is taxable, not the entire gross amount, and this profit requires estimation.

CIT v. Amit Jain
351 ITR 74 · 2013 · High Court
58
citing judgments

Where an assessee offers additional income during a survey action under section 133A and declares it in the return, and no other source of income is established, a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income may not be leviable.

CIT v. Manmohan Das
59 ITR 699 · 1966 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

The eligibility for an assessee to carry forward and set off losses, including capital losses, against future income is determined by the Assessing Officer in the year the set-off is claimed, not in the year the loss was incurred.

DCIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Limited
88 Taxmann.com 738 · 2017 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) can be claimed in the year an asset is acquired and installed, even if it is claimed in a subsequent year of acquisition and installation.

Goodyear (I) Ltd. v. ITO
73 ITD 189 · 2000 · ITAT
27
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for the transfer of the use of licenses, without acquiring ownership rights or an enduring benefit, constitutes revenue expenditure. Such payments are allowable as a deduction if they are directly relatable to services in the revenue field.

ITO v. Seth Bros. (SC)
74 ITR 836 · 1969 · Reported
24
citing judgments

Evidence collected during an illegal search can still be used against the assessee. An assessment made based on such evidence is valid.

Judgments citing Section 2(74)

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

mere procedural requirement. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the definition of assessing officer as defined in section 2(74) of the Act. The said provision defines 'assessing officer' to mean the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Director or Deputy Director

Kusum Yadav, Indore vs. ITO 1(2), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 518/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 263Section 54BSection 68

population of more than ten thousand and as such the agricultural land was a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(74)(/77) of the I.T. Act and was liable to be taxed on the capital gain arising out of the sale proceeds of that land. In view

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP
Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(74) of the Act and that if that land is used for agricultural purposes till the date of sale, despite the fact that it' is converted

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

land from agriculture to non-agriculture could not be taken as the sole criteria to hold it as a capital asset under section 2(74) of the Act and that if that land is used for agricultural purposes till the date of sale, despite the fact that it' is converted