“Section 2(14)(c)”

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

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

SELINA N. SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -17(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the ground No

ITA 2352/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Selina N. Sheth Ito, Ward – 17(3)(1), M/S. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai – 400020. 29 Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400001. [Pan: Aabps9851L] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 10(38)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 57

entitled for exemption and treated the entire sum of Rs. 30,07,227/- as chargeable to tax. The ld. CIT(A) held that section 2(14)(c) specified that ULIP is a capital asset only when exemption under section 10(10D) does not apply on account of 4th& 5th proviso ... submitted that in a series of decision, Tribunal held that a ULIP amounts to a capital asset even prior to the insertion of section 2(14)(c) and the redemption proceeds are required to be taxed under the head capita gain after allowing indexation cost. To support his submission

ROHIT JAYANTILAL SONI,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TAXATION, VADODARA

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

ITA 1800/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 10Section 10(100)Section 147Section 80D

than the limit specified under the fourth proviso to section 10(10D) of the Act. This has been further emphasized by amendment to section 2(14)(c) of the Act vide Act No. 13 of 2021 which has specifically stated the investment in unit linked insurance policy as ‘capital asset ... decision rendered by the Mumbai Bench Tribunal in the case of Mihir K. Jhaveri (cited supra) which considered the amendment to Section 2(14)(c) of the Act. Therefore in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set- aside the matter back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing

HARDIAL SINGH,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 185/ASR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh.Parveen Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. D. R

Section 10Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(c)Section 80C

exceeding the limit specified under the fourth proviso to section 10(10D) of the Act. This interpretation is reinforced by the amendment to section 2(14)(c) of the Act vide Act No. 13 of 2021, which explicitly designates investment in unit-linked insurance policies as 'capital assets. 5. Lack

MIHIR K JHAVERI,MUM vs. CIT (APPEALS)-51, MUM

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

ITA 21/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Mihir K. Jhaveri Cit(Appeals)-51 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ee 5011/12/13, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, Bandra (E), Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(c)Section 250Section 56Section 56(1)Section 80C

addition/disallowances. 6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the A.O. on the ground that section 2(14)(c) of the Act is w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and does not apply retrospectively for this assessment year, thereby held that the surrender proceeds of the ULIP to be taxed under ... Jhaveri vs.CIT(Appeals) under the head ‘income from other sources’. The assessee’s contention that ULIP is a capital asset as per section 2(14)(c) of the Act as per the latest amendment to the provision was not accepted by the ld. CIT(A) for the reason that section