← All Phrases

“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)

M/S R. S. Shetye & Bros, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Panaji

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

ITA 37/PAN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G D Padmahshalii T A. No.37/Pan/2023 (A.Y.2016-17) R.S.Shetye & Bros, Vs Acit 1(1), Flat.No.14, 1 St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, . Trionara Apartments, Edc, Patto, New Muncipal Market, Panjim Panaji- Goa-403001. Goa-403001. Pan .No.Aabfr9785N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Section 3

capital i.e., minerals-stock which in turn generated regular revenue for the mining business is uprightly a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act . 19. As to whether mining lease granted for a period of ten years is a capital asset and give rise ... actions of both the tax authorities below in construing the renewal of mining-lease in substance as a capital asset as defined by section 2(14) of the Act. 12 ITA. No.37/PAN/2023 R.S.Shetye and Bros. B. Stamp Duty, nature & character; 23. Having decided the nature & character of mininglease including renewal

Neelesh Shyamsunder Sable, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 51(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8304/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Respondent: Mr. Sumit Sinha, Adv. (Virtually
Section 56Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viia)Section 56(2)(x)

defined Consequently, they do not constitute a "Capital Asset" as defined Consequently, they do not constitute a "Capital Asset" as defined under Section 2(14) for the purposes of Section 56; secondly (ii) under Section 2(14) for the purposes of Section 56; under Section 2(14) for the purposes

Rushina Vikram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(2), Income Tax Officer, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2300/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 69Section 69B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad

Tharmiya Subramanian Ramila, Madurai vs. ITO, Ward-1(7), Madurai

ITA 3503/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3503/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Thamiya Subramanian Ramila, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 391, K.K. Nagar, 8Th East Street, Ward 1(7), Madurai 625 020. Madurai. [Pan:Aehpr1869M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Latchana, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 226 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons That She Is An Illiterate & Her Husband Has To Look After The Tax Matters

For Appellant: Shri P. Ranga Ramanujam, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 54BSection 54F

specifically that it is an agricultural land does not come under the purview of capital gain as it is not an asset under section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee contested that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Manikandan, Chennai

ITA 2986/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2986/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Non Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. Manikandan, Vs. No.15/16/17, Vision Towers, 2Nd Floor, Yogam Garden, Valasarvakkam, Chennai - 600 087. Pan: Behpm 6583A (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Assessee By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By Mr. R. Sivaraman, Advocate Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11.02.2026 16.02.2026 Per Padmavathy.S, A.M: आदेश / Order This Appeal By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 26.08.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. The Assessee Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Contrary To Law & Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2 The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Of An Amount Of Rs.2,98,29,315/- Credited In Assessee'S Capital Account By M/S Crcl Llp, In Which Assessee Is A Partner, For Sacrificing / Relinquishing - 2 -:

Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250Section 45Section 45(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH: CHENΝΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

held that since the land in question does not fall under definition of a Capital asset in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, and the assessee is engaged in agricultural operations on such land, the impugned transfer cannot be considered as transfer

Bandekar Brothers Private Limited, Vasco-Da-Gama, Goa vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, Goa

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 38/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji11 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2013-14 Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Post Box No. 11, Suvarna Bandekar Bldg., Swatantra Path, Vasco-Da-Gama Goa-403802 Pan: Aaacb5502B . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Assessee’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(1) Of The Income-

For Appellant: Mr Pramod & Mr Shriniwas Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish & Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 37(1)

treated the stamp duty payment as consideration for acquiring mining rights being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act, which allowed the assessee to extract iron ore minerals and generate a circulating capital in the form of ‘stock-in-trade’ and consequential revenue realisation ... mining lease/licence for a period of twenty years holding it to be a payment for acquiring a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and further turned down the alternative ground of consequential depreciation thereon. ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 39 M/s Bandekar Brothers

Onkarprasad Madhukar Funde, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chandrapur

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

ITA 657/NAG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 56

also claimed that since the property in question is an agricultural land and is not a capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act, therefore, deeming provisions of section 56 (2)(x) are not applicable. For this purpose, reliance placed on the decision of Coordinate Bench

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

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

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

learned authorities erred in treating the land sold as a capital asset and, despite the land being rural agricultural land not falling within section 2(14) of the Act. Merely because grass ("Gavat") was grown does not alter the agricultural character of the land, and the addition ... Sharma v. CIT 209 ITR 946 held that Potential non-agricultural use or purchaser's intention does not change agricultural character. 2.4 Section 2(14)(iii) excludes "Agricultural land in India" (subject to distance conditions) There is no exclusion for grass land, no requirement of crop rotation, no requirement

Anish Vishnoi, Raipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 764/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.764/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anish Vishnoi New Bus Stand Baloda Bazar, Baloda Bazar S.O., Raipur (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Aeapv0087J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

area is less than 10,000. Hence, the property sold by the appellant is agricultural land and as per Clause (iii) of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Such agricultural land is not a capital asset and therefore any gain earned on sale of such land

Sh. Shankar Lal S/O Sh. Bastiram Through Legal Heir Smt. Sudarshana Devi, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

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

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1234/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Shankar Lal S/O Shri Bastiram, The Ito, Through L/H Smt. Sudershana Devi, Vs Ward-4, Village – Kaimbwala, Chandigarh. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abgpl9378P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR
Section 159(2)Section 2(14)

certified to be agricultural land by the Tehsildar, Zone Pinjore, Distt. Panchula and accordingly, falls outside the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Report of Tehsildar and Population Census is also annexed. 6. That further, on 29.03.2012, within 7 months ... credit of acquisition cost. The AO has to determine whether it actually falls within the ambit of capital asset or not mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act because it was a rural agricultural land and if it falls outside the municipal limit at a distance

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

land situated at Villukuri Village, Kanyakumari District as taxable long-term capital gain, holding that the land was a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. 4.1 On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) and deleted the addition made towards capital gains, holding that ... limits of the Nagercoil Municipal Limits. As such, the impugned land cannot be termed as capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2 (14) of the IT Act. 9.9 It may be appreciated that the nature and character of the agricultural and as compared to its distance from

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Krupesh Jayantilal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 921/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.921/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Municipal limits in all direction whereas land in question is outside the 5 KM radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and as per Section 2(14)(iii)(a) capital asset means property of any kind hold by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession and agricultural land

Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari, Bamangam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(4), Vadodara

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

ITA 343/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.343/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vasrambhai Rabari Legal Heir The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Of Late Dhulabhai F. Rabari Ward-3(1)(4) V/S. Rabari Falia Vadodara – 390 007 Bamangam, Karjan Vadodara – 391 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bjdpr 6785 E (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद

Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Pune vs. ITO Ward-10(1), Pune

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

conditions as laid down u/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b). The land in question is a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the I. T. Act. In the absence of any supporting documents along with plausible explanation, the entire amount of Rs. 2

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

interpret the facts) which would definitely fall within the scope and definition of a Capital Asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act making the resultant effect (i.e. whether gain or loss) being liable to be calculated and treated as "Capital Gains" (short/long term depending upon ... period of. holding). c) As per section 2(14) of the Act, "Capital Asset" means "property of any kind held by an Assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession". The rights conferred on the Appellant herein by virtue of the agreement dated 03.04.2014 bestow it with

Rajasekhar Naidu Galla, Tirupati vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Tirupathi

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

ITA 917/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

right of the assessee in the property to be purchased as per the sale agreement dated 30.08.2012. We further note that Section 2(14) of the Act defines property of any kind to include intangible rights and contractual rights. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case ... right to purchase the property under an agreement to sell and held that, the said right is a capital asset falling under Section 2(14) of the Act. Once the assessee has got a right to purchase the property, then relinquishment or extinguishment of any right in the said property

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

purchased is agricultural land and the same doesn't fall in the definition of capital asset as per the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act and provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) cannot be invoked. The contention of the AO is that the provisions of Section ... exception for agricultural land. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material placed on record and relevant provisions of section 2(14) & section 56 of the Act. We note that section 2(14) excludes following agricultural land from the definition of capital asset. “Section 2(14

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Dee Ess Properties Private Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4070/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69

before us considering the CBDT Circular No. 17/2015 dated 06.10.2015 on the issue of measurement of difference of land for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, contents whereof are appearing at page 30 of the impugned order considering the difference in the rate the land

Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd., Singapore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2104/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Investments Assistant Commissioner Of Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road, #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aaccf9284G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2022-23 Fort Canning Credit Assistant Commissioner Of Investments Pte. Ltd. Income-Tax (International 260 Orchard Road #14-02 Taxation) - 2(3)(1) Vs. The Heeren, Singapore, Mumbai Singapore – 238855 (Pan: Aadcf7866R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Ms. Priyanka Agarwala, Ms.Hirali Desai, Ms. Nidhi Agarwal & Shri Yogesh Malpani, Cas Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit Dr & Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.01.2026 Fort Canning Investments Pte. Ltd. & Fort Canning Credit Investments Pte. Ltd. Ay 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT DR and Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 270A

section 2(84) of the Companies Act, 2013 to differentiate between rights entitlement and shares. Under the domestic law, we also refer to section 2(14) of the Act, whereby the term capital asset means among other things, any security held by FPI in accordance with the FPI Regulations made ... under the SEBI Act, 1992. Explanation 2 to section 2(14) of the Act mentions that “Security” has the meaning assigned in section 2(h) of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA). In this regard as per section 2(h) of SCRA, the term securities has been defined