← 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)

Krishna Devi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 7590/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 50C

Kumar Sarswat. During the course of appellate proceedings the assessee has submitted that the land is not capital assets with the definition of section 2(14) of I. T.Act., 1961. Further, the assessee has enclosed copy of certificate issued by Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad dated 27.08.2008. 3. The submission furnished ... before the first day of the previous year. 4. As per the notification under Section 2(1A)(C), proviso, Clause (II)(B) and Section 2(14)(III)(B) notification No. (SO 9447 F.No.164/3/87-IOTA.I dated 06.01.1994 (copy enclosed) the area of the capital assets notified by above circular Ghaziabad

Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, Surat vs. I.T.O., Ward 2(2)(5), Surat.

In the result, the ground No

ITA 591/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Vijay Ramsingh Goyal, I.T.O., A-201, Surya Prakash Residency, Ward-2(2)(5), Vs. Beside Agrasen Bhavan, City Light, Surat. Surat-395007 (Gujarat). Pan No. Acupk 0294 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

said property was in the form of agricultural land situated in a small village and was not covered under capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee was not under obligation to maintain the cash book in his case, he was filing return of income under Section

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

from different parties at a total cost of Rs.2.28 lakhs. Further, the land being agricultural, i.e., not a ‘capital asset’ in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained ... Hazari vs. Parshottam Tiwari [2001] 251 ITR 84 (SC)). 7. Prior to its substitution by Finance Act, 1970, w.e.f. 01.04.1970, clause (iii) of section 2(14) read as under: 9 ITANo. 525/Coch/2011 (AY 2006-07) Dy. CIT v. M.J. George “(iii) agricultural land in India,” Reference thereto is relevant

Shri Bhadresh Ramniklal Nagda, Jamnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1), Jamnagar

In the result, ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/RJT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 56

However, the other contention of assessee that land purchased by the assessee is agricultural land falls within the exemption of capital asset under section 2(14) and section 56(2)(vii)(b) is not applicable, was not accepted by holding that he has already taken a contrary view in appeal

Ranjita Rangnath Mhatre, Mumbai vs. ITO, 29(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2498/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Alibag, Dist. Raigad, not appreciating that the land sold was agricultural land and therefore not a capital asset as per exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I T Act 1961 and accordingly the surplus arising on sale of such land was not liable ... assessing officer that the said land is a rural agricultural land and does not fall within the definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee prayed that the assessee be allowed exemption under section 10(37) of the Act towards the amount received

Arun Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-24(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3454/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2007-08 Arun Kumar Aggarwal Acit Circle – 24 (1) B-1/74, Safdarjung Enclave, Vs New Delhi New Delhi-110029 Pan No.Aaepa1259K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 154Section 2(14)Section 263Section 50C(1)Section 50C(2)

facts of the case in holding the property sold during A.Y. 2006-07 to not being a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act without bringing any evidence on record in this regard.” 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return

Bijender Singh Thakran, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2017/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Disposal Of The Appeal.” Ground No. 1 & 2:

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 4Section 44ASection 69A

without prejudice to the above, the quantum of addition is disputed. 3. Because the action for treating the amount of exempt sale consideration (section 2(14) as chargeable long term capital gain amounting to Rs.16,33,200/- (7/16th share) is being challenged on facts & law. 4. Because praying ... also contended that no submissions have been made by the assessee to controvert the finding of the AO how section 2(14)(b) of the Act is not applicable to the case of the assessee. 8. On careful consideration of submissions, we note that the AO by passing rectification order

Parkash Sinwal, Hanumangarh vs. ITO, Ward, Hanumangarh

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

ITA 94/JODH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta and Sh. Vedant Gupta, CAsFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 151Section 69A

Page No. 9 to 11 of the paper-book. o In this regard, it may be noted that as per the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act, any agricultural land situated beyond the stipulated threshold of the municipality/ cantonment board shall not be considered as a capital asset

Narayani Bai Dangi, Udaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Udaipur

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

ITA 42/JODH/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.42/Jodh/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234Section 250Section 54B

agriculture purposes. I also uphold the action of the AO in treating the plot of land as a capital asset in terms of sections 2(14) of the Act. In view of the same, I uphold the action of the AO in taxing the income earned from the sale

Shri Chhitubhi Jagubhai Patel, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.224/Srt/2023 (Ay 2014-15) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chhitubhai Jagubhai Patel Income Tax Officer, Ward- Kanbi Faliya, At & Po Kholwad, 1(2)(1), Surat, Aaykar Vs Taluka, Kamrej, Surat-394109 Bhavan, Room No.121, 1St Pan No. Brlpp 7388 D Floor, Nr. Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C

village is not more than 10,000 where land was situated and land in question is not non-agricultural asset as per Section 2(14) of the Act. There is few change in Income Tax Act from financial year 2013-14 due to which assessee was liable to file return

Ghanshyam Shankarrao Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 54/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Ghanshyam ShankarraoFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Suresh M. Bhathija (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2561/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhbhathija Suresh M (Huf) Vs. Income Tax Officer 120 Dakshinpali, D Monte 23(3)(1), Mumbai Park Road Pali Hill Mumbai 400050 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahs 8289 M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ms. Rutuja N Pawar& Ms. Sneha More Respondent By : Shri Yogendra T Wakare Date Of Hearing 31.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 15.09.2022 For A.Y. 2006-07. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer In Bringing To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 90,92,165/- As Long Term Capital Gains On Sale Of Land. 2. The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Failed To Appreciate That The Said Land Was An Agricultural Land & Was Not A Capital Asset. 3. Without Prejudice To The Above Grounds Of Appeal, The Learned Cit(Appeals) & The Learned Assessing Officer Were Not Justified In Disallowing The Claim For Expenses Of Rs. 69,00,000/- While Computing The Long Term Capital Gains.

For Appellant: Ms. Rutuja N Pawar&For Respondent: Shri Yogendra T Wakare
Section 143(2)Section 50C

assessee submitted that the said land was used for agricultural operation and the same was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. The assessee also mentioned that copy of 7/12 extracts has been filed along with sale deed. It is also mentioned that ... sold as a non-agricultural land by the assessee. The claim of the assessee that the same is not a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act is baseless and therefore rejected. (iii) The 7/12 extract which is part of the sale deed corresponds with the 7/12 extract

Smt. Jaya Mogra, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 333/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Sept 2023AY 2009-10
Section 127Section 132Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI

Chander Mani Sharma, Khurja vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Bulandshahr

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1580/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N.K.Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Chander Mani Vs. Ito, Sharma Ward-3(1), S/O. Sh. Shanti Swaroop Bulandshahr R/O. Vill.-Ibrahimpur Uttar Pradesh Junaidpur Urf Maujpur, Khurja Junction Khurja (U.P.) Pan : Dtxps1373B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV

Karam Singh Tanwar, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Gurgaon

ITA 5109/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Gayatri Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2(14)

appellant is a farmer and was cultivating the land for decades and had sold its agricultural land, which is outside the scope of Section 2(14) and hence cannot be treated as capital asset and hence the same is to be treated as exempt from capital gains. 7. That

Om Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 3(2), Gurgaon

ITA 5108/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Gayatri Gulati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 148Section 2(14)

appellant is a farmer and was cultivating the land for decades and had sold its agricultural land, which is outside the scope of Section 2(14) and hence cannot be treated as capital asset and hence the same is to be treated as exempt from capital gains. 7. That

Virendra Bhavanji Gala, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2023AY 2018-19
Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITO Ward-32(2), New Delhi vs. Sukhbir Singh Dagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of revenue is allowed

ITA 2757/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaito, Vs. Sukhbir Singh Dagar, Ward-32(2), K-259, High Gate Mansion, New Delhi Maidan Garhi Road, Chattarpur Enclave, Phase-2, New Dlehi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acipd3262H Assessee By : Sh. M. S. Dagar, Adv Revenue By: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, Jcit Date Of Hearing 09/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10/08/2023

For Appellant: Sh. M. S. Dagar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Raja Rajeshwari R, JCIT
Section 2(14)

property sold. The ld DR submitted that the capital gain arising out transfer of land which is a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) has escaped assessment therefore, reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee ... having 50% of share in the said property sold. We further note that undisputedly the property sold was a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act and capital gain arising there from was liable to be taxed as long term capital gain keeping in view the time

Income Tax Officer-1, Raigarh vs. M/S Sumit Global Pvt. Ltd, Raigarh

In the result appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 97/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर न्यायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्यायिक सदस्य

Jm Financial Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3987/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)

control, transfer of business along with incidental rights, separate legal persona, indirect control, rights consisting of independent capital assets within the meaning of section 2(14), the aspect of control vis-à-vis the ownership of shares, control premium, legal relationship between a holding company and a subsidiary company, acquiring