“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)

Jyoti Goyal, Bhopal vs. DCIT-1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is partly allowed as mentioned above

ITA 380/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Jyoti Goyal, Dcit, 18, Shyamla Hills, 1(1), बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abbpg3493P Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20.05.2024

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Vipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2

ITA 3726/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jayshree Menon, Ld. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that - i. The appellant fulfilled all the criteria's for claim of agricultural land as not capital asset as per section provision of section 2(14) (iii) ii. The certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat of Umbroli clearly specified that the said agricultural land at Umbroli is beyond 8 kilometres ... said land sold on 5.12.2013 was not within the Municipal limits. V. The CBDT circular No 17/2015 dated 06.10.2015 in relation to section 2(14) (iii) (b) that the distance is to be measured aerially. 3. The Learned CIT (A)-NFAC erred in confirming the sale of agricultural land under

ITO, W-6(5), Mohali vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur, Kharar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1448/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

registered value. The seller of the property who is selling his agriculture land, which is not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act, shall have no implication of payment of any tax either under the stamp duty act or under Income ... assessee. These provisions do not include in its ambit agriculture land which is not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14). Had there been an intention of the legislature to tax any amount received on sale of agriculture land which is either undervalued or overvalued, legislature

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1439/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Ajmer Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Disposal Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

Neeru Mohan Nagpal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward 2(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/JPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: MS. Pallavi Khuntenta, (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(47)

No.6- The next issue that has to be decided is whether the right to acquire the property has been "transferred" in accordance with section 2 (14) of the I. T. Act so as to result in the incurring of capital loss by the appellant. As per Section 2(14

Dipti Garg, Tonk vs. ITO WD, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 633/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Dr. S Seethalakshmi

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

including rights of management or control or any other rights whatsoever;]” 9. Now, examining the definition of agricultural land mentioned in the above section 2(14) of the Act in light of the certificates of the Municipal Board, certificate of distance from land to Municipal Board and certificate of population ... thus, of the considered view that agricultural land in question is not a capital asset and is not falling under the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. 10. Now, moving to the second contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee that if an asset is not falling

Kulwant Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohali

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

ITA 395/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 54B

erred in giving his findings that the agricultural land sold by the Assessee is not capital asset as per provisions of Section 2(14) of the Act and as such long term capital gain arising out of sale of the same was liable to be taxed. 2. That ... Land sold by the Assessee was not a capital Asset and was purely in the nature of Rural Agriculture Land as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It was submitted that as per the definition of agriculture land, it is clear that any Land which

Manmohan Singh Bhadana, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2918/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Ms. Aabgina Chishti, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhaneshta, Sr. D.R

Section 2(14)Section 250

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Jacintha Prasad Panicker, Mangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mangalore

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

ITA 263/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Ravishankar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R

Section 131(1)(d)Section 234

Serial No. 4.5 of the Remand Report supra where in it is concluded that land in question meets criteria as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. Further the Certificate from Income Tax Department Registered Valuer, is enclosed for your kind perusal to justify the Status

Champalal Choudhary Through L/H Manish Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO-3(4), Indore

ITA 553/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2012-13 Late Shri Champalal Income-Tax Officer, Choudhary, Through Legal 3(4), Heir Manish Choudhary, Indore. बनाम/ 35, Khatipura, Vs. Indore. (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Apupc5183R Assessee By Shri Apurva Mehta, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15.04.2024

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, इंदौर "ायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

Late Sh. Birdi Chand Through Legal Heir Mukesh Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 292BSection 54F

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Maddikunta Sanjeeva Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sangareddy

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 230/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Maddikunta Sanjeeva Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ward – 1, Hno11-222/1, Sangareddy. Shanthinagar Colony, Patancheru, Hyderabad – 502319, Telangana. Pan : Eiyps0245H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar Kovvada, Ca. Revenue By: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri Kali Kiran Kumar KovvadaFor Respondent: Shri Ranjan Agarwala, Sr.AR

Section 147

order for the levy of capital gain tax. They had claimed that the property was an agricultural land within the meaning of section 2(14) and hence capital gains tax was not applicable. The CIT passed a revision order in favour of the assessee and accordingly they

Sh. Avtar Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 389/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S.Kahlon, CIT-DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 54B

accepting the figure of population as per last census Which was available as per census 2011 and ignoring the provision of section 2(14) which is arbitrary and unjustified. 4. That the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has further erred in treating the land sold on the basis of unregistered ... sale consideration of agricultural land. The AO expressed the view that the land sold was a capital asset as per the provisions of Section 2(14)(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act and ITA 389/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 4 that the Notification No. 9447 of dated 06.01.1994 was not applicable

Durga Charan Sarkar, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Siliguri.

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

ITA 1227/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. S.B. Chakraborthy, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 2(14)Section 250

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

contributed as capital asset on 06.04.2012, it was an agricultural land and is outside the scope of definition of capital asset in terms section 2(14) of the Act. However, the Assessing Officer was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has observed that the intention ... assessee and held that the assets transferred to the partnership firm as capital contribution do not qualify as agricultural land within the meaning section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus, the transfer attracts the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act. As such, the Assessing Officer

Hayward Synthetics P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 2 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, present appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3644/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Dr. K.ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule

Section 143(3)Section 250

contending that right to obtain conveyance of property itself constituted property which fell within the definition of term ‘capital asset’ as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act and the transfer of the same resulted in long term capital gains in the hands of the Appellant. Since the Property ... securing the allotment and on payment of advance. The aforesaid right was recognized as property constituting a capital asset in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act which was transferred after expiry of 36 months and therefore, the Appellant was entitled to claim benefit of long terms capital gains

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

from the Municipal limit same is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has annexed the Google Map of the land sold. As per Section 2(14)(iii), amendment has been brought in the definition of agricultural land as capital asset retrospectively from 1.4.1970. Hence the Assessing Officer is correct

Mahadev Gundu More, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 229/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 2(14)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No