← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(a)5 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(a) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(a)

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court
132
citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli
330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)(a)

Nutrela Marketing P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee dismissed

ITA 3910/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 50Section 50C

Atul Puranik (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not consider the effect and import of Section 2(14)(a) in conjunction with the language used in section 50C of the IT Act, and merely goes on to hold, that since the land is held ... position, that mode of holding of a property, cannot be equated with the property itself, as against which what Section 50C read with Section 2(14) of the IT Act speaks about, is the property. We are therefore, not in agreement with what has been held in Atul Puranik (supra

Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Chhabra, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2295/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Balbirsingh Balwantsingh Dcit, Cc-3(1)(1) B-34, Nice, Midc Satpur Room No. 607 Nashik, Maharashtra Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Pincode No.- 422 007. M.K.Road Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Addpc7217K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali AafaquiFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain
Section 10Section 2(14)(c)

appellant are different and hence not applicable. 4. Heard both sides. There is no dispute that treating ULIP as a “capital asset” under section 2(14)(c) of the Act is only from A.Y. 2021-22 as the amendment has come by way of Finance Act 2021 and there ... case, it is premature withdrawal. 5. So, the appellant is not eligible to take shelter under the above decision of Coordinate Bench. But, section 2(14)(a) says “capital asset” means property of any kind held by appellant, whether or not connected with his business or profession. So, here

Shiva Corporation (India) Limited, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, CC-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

head “long term capital gain” by treating the agriculture lands sold by assessee as urban and capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14). Appellant prays that land sold by assessee during the year under consideration was rural agriculture land and thus the additions so made deserve ... cost of Rs.14,19,994/- and Rs. 1,80,650/- respectively. These land being agricultural land and not capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of Act. The assessee claims that both the lands were situated far away from limits of nearest Municipal Corporation and the lands are actually

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

from different parties at a total cost of Rs.2.28 lakhs. Further, the land being agricultural, i.e., not a ‘capital asset’ in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained ... Hazari vs. Parshottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)). 7. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 1970, w.e.f. 01.04.1970, clause (iii) of section 2(14) read as under: 9 ITANo. 525/Coch/2011 (AY 2006-07) Dy. CIT v. M.J. George “(iii) agricultural land in India,” Reference thereto is relevant

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Datla Shanti, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/VIZ/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54F

आयकर अपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणम पीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ी दु"वू" आर एल