← All Phrases

“Section 14(3)”

Section References (mined)Section 14Section 14(3)30 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 14(3) is CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft (310 ITR 320), cited in 259 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 14(3)

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.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

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.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

Judgments citing Section 14(3)

Avishkar Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2302/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2302/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Avishkar Nirman Private Ltd, Vs Ito Ward-13(1), Kolkata 7, Tara Chand Dutta Street, 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700073 Pan No. :Aagca 5075 Q (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Assessee Is Challenging The Reopening Of The Assessment. It Was Submission That The Original Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act Came To Be Completed In The Case Of The Assessee On 28/01/2016. It Was Submission That Notice U/S.148 Of The Act Had Been Issued To The Assessee On 19/03/2020. It Was He Submission That This Was Beyond The Period Of 4 Years From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year. It Was Submission That The In View Of Provision Of Section 147 Of The Act, The Ao Must Record The Failure On The Part Of The Assessee To Disclose Truly & Fully All Material Facts As Required For The Assessment.

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr. DR
Section 14(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT

Rakesh Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. No.546/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2017-18 Rakesh Jain Vs Dcit - 26(1) Shop No. 29, 2Nd Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, 126-128, Sheikh Menon Bandra, Mumbai St., Trimurti Estate, Kalbadevi, Mumbai Pan – Aaιρj7359P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By | Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue By || Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2025 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt.28.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 115Section 144Section 145Section 156Section 250Section 274Section 68

applying a higher net profit rate to total contract receipts after rejecting assessee's books of account by invoking the provisions of section 14(3), no separate addition can be made on account of cash credit u/s.68, even though the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proof ... applying a higher net profit rate to total contract receipts after rejecting assessee's books of account by invoking the provisions of section 14(3), no separate addition can be made on account of cash credit u/s.68, even though the assessee has failed to discharge its onus of proof