“Section 2(14)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)695 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)

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)

Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2, Bardoli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1095/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1095/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Hasmukhbhai Mangabhai Ahir, Vs. The Ito, Ahir Faliyu, At & Post – Palsana, Taluka Ward –2, - Palsana, Surat – 394317 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Brppa3017A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 50C

observed that the appellant failed to provide any evidence to substantiate that the impugned land was agricultural land within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. He also noted that in spite of specific opportunity granted to the assessee by the AO, the assessee failed to furnish ... onus cast upon him to prove that the land was agricultural land and it was situated outside the boundary limit specified in Section 2(14) of the Act. The CIT(A) did not allow any cost of acquisition of the land in absence of any details furnished by the assessee

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

land and received a total consideration of ₹95,00,000/-. As the land in question does not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act, the appellant, being a layperson with limited financial literacy and no prior knowledge of tax laws, genuinely believed that the transaction ... Sharma did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR), believing that the income from the sale of rural agricultural land was exempt under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings, questioning the non-disclosure of the transaction and the difference between

Sanjeev Behl, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80

surrender of the policy as taxable under the head "Income from Other Sources", the learned CIT(A) referred to the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act and held that since life insurance policy is not included within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14 ... find any merit in the findings of the learned CIT(A) in treating the same as not covered under the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. 10. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR") raised a plea that the amendment by the Finance

Jayeshbhai Ravjibhai Patel, Bharuch vs. ITO, Ward1(1), Bharuch

ITA 46/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Suthar, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO, Jaipur vs. Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur

ITA 84/JPR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

tribunal to verify the distance so as to determine the fact that the land fulfill the criteria as prescribed in the provisions of section 2(14(iii)(b) of the Act. In that matter, the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 02.12.2019 set aside the matter to determine the distance ... Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding of Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) and holding the agricultural land as exempted under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that the said land was falling within 8 kms of the municipal limit and thereby deleting

Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 927/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

Archita Farms Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The PCIT, Ahmedabad-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1393/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R

Section 147Section 2(14)Section 263

situated outside municipality limits, however he held that no agricultural activity was being carried on the land in question. He, referring provisions of section 2(14) of the Act, held that such exemption was applicable to agricultural land only. That since no agricultural activity was carried out on the land ... adjudication as to whether the land in question would fall in the definition of agricultural land or not as per the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. The ld. Departmental Representative has pointed out that as per the reports, during the year under consideration when the sale

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

alleged short term capital gain. That the land being rural agricultural land was not a' capital asset as per provision of Section 2(14)(iii). The addition made, therefore may very kindly be deleted. 4 That the learned CIT(A] erred in maintaining addition Rs.20,00,000/- made ... after verifying the details. The only dispute here is whether the lands involved were a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act or otherwise. 9. 2. The assessment order, the averments made by the appellant in this regard and the material available

Ashish Murlidhar Gaikwad, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2077/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 2(14)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele (Legal Heir of Late. Thaksen Sopan Bankhele), Pune vs. ITO Ward 10(2), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 475/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele V The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Thaksen S Ward-10(2), Pune. Sopan Bankhele), Sai Namdeo Park, Flat No.12 B-Ii, Near Mhadha Housing Society, Morwadi, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Agfpb8295D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 196, Ludhiana 23.02.2024For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)(v)Section 250o

erred in confirming) not considering the fact that the property was Agriculture Land NIL not considered as Capital Asset in terms of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and therefore, not liable to tax. 3. The Ld. AO erred in (Ld. CIT-A erred in confirming) in applying

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 968/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Ravji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1001/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

DCIT Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Rasik Kunverji Chheda, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are

ITA 1000/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 45Section 6

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘D’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Teju Parvat, Sanver vs. ITO-1(1), Indore

Appeal is disposed off on merits

ITA 635/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

from Sanwer in terms of aerial distance. Both the properties does not fall under the purview of capital assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act therefore consideration amount realised supra were exempted from tax purview. A google map and a certificate from Patwari was placed ... authority. As such, it could not be established by the assessee that both the lands are not capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Under the circumstances, submission filed by the assessee is not found to be tenable. Also no information is available

Pankaj Agarwal, Kanpur vs. Jt.CIT Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 267/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2012-13 Pankaj Agarwal, 7/151, Ratan Vs. The Jt. Commissioner Of Majestic, Opp. Sony World, Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur-208002 Kanpur-208001 Pan:Abjfs4912R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rakesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr Dr & Sh Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 21.08.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because The Cit (A) Has The Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Loss In Trading In Derivatives Business Treating The Same As Capital Loss, As Against Assessee'S Claim Of Business Loss, To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, Which Order Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law, The Disallowance Made By The Ao & Upheld Be Deleted. 2. Because On A Proper Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Also On The Interpretation Of The Provisions Of Sec 43(5), It Would Be Found The Loss Of Rs.2,47,02,865/- On Account Of Trading In Derivative Is Neither A Speculative Loss Nor A Capital Loss, The Same Should Ought To Be Set Off Against Other Business Income, The Cit (A) Has Erred, In Treating The Same As Short Term Capital Loss.

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma Sr DR & Sh

Section 14ASection 250Section 43(5)Section 72

phrase, ‘trading in derivatives” and trading meant, buying and selling on a short-term basis for quick profits. It was further submitted that section 2(14) of the Act, which defined capital assets had been amended w.e.f. 1.04.2015, with the introduction of Explanation 2, which for the first time included ... arise in derivative transactions when the same are held as investments by the assessee. She held that the amendment that was brought into section 2(14) in the definition of capital asset, was with regard to Foreign Institutional Investors, for whom securities have to invariably be treated as capital asset

Suresh Bhagwandas Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6292/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsuresh Bhagwandas Mehta, B-4 Mehta House, Jvpd Scheme, Vl Mehta Road, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400049 ............... Appellant Pan : Aadpm8459J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 54B

case where the land may be used for the agricultural purpose, however, the same being covered under one of the clauses of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, from the careful perusal of the provisions of section

Late Sh. Shri Ram, Through Legal Heir Ramesh Kumar, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward-Bhiwadi, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical

ITA 126/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT- DR

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

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

appellant asserts that the LIC Endowment Plan Unit Linked-Growth fund option policies should be treated as 'capital assets' within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. These policies represent investments and hold inherent value, akin to traditional capital assets, thus warranting a different tax treatment than annuity ... that ULIPs are now expressly treated as 'capital assets' according to the Finance Act, 2021. The appellant draws attention to clause(c) of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, which defines 'capital asset' and includes any unit-linked insurance policy (ULIP) to which exemption under clause

Pawan Kumar Singla, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee's appeal on the various grounds raised

ITA 12/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132oSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

year under consideration which was not situated in any municipality or notified area and therefore was not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the agricultural land as capital asset simply on the ground that agricultural land sold ... land sold by appellant is fit for agricultural purposes and agricultural land and therefore, the assESSEE should be allowed benefit of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act". The contention of the appellant canot be accepted as the onus lies on the appellant to prove that the land sold

Pawan Kumar Singla, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh

In the result, the assessee’s appeal on the various grounds raised is dismissed

ITA 11/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Final Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 132oSection 143(2)Section 153ASection 153DSection 271(1)(c)

year under consideration which was not situated in any municipality or notified area and therefore was not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer has treated the agricultural land as capital asset simply on the ground that agricultural land sold ... land sold by appellant is fit for agricultural purposes and agricultural land and therefore, the assessee should be allowed benefit of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act". The contention of the appellant canot be accepted as the onus lies on the appellant to prove that the land sold