“Section 14(6)”
The decision most relied on for Section 14(6) is Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT (204 ITR 631), cited in 197 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on Section 14(6)
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.
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.
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.
The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.
Taxing provisions imposing new liabilities or affecting substantive rights are presumed to operate prospectively unless the statute expressly or necessarily implies retrospective application. Retrospective operation is generally not given if it impairs existing rights, creates new obligations, or imposes new liabilities, except for procedural matters.
Under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, the assessee's burden is limited to explaining the immediate source of a cash credit; there is no legal requirement to explain the source of the source.
Even if statutory language appears merely enabling, courts infer a duty to exercise such power when it aids a citizen's right. Public authorities cannot decline to act when circumstances warrant help, nor can they act to a person's detriment without justification.
An appellate authority cannot travel beyond the provisions of law when adjudicating matters, as doing so is barred by jurisdiction and renders the action otiose.