“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)

DCIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. J.M. Financial Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3925/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

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

Kanpur Development Authority functions in and around the Kanpur city of Uttar Pradesh. b. It is pertinent to note that as per section 2(14)(i)(a)&(b) of IT Act, those agricultural lands which are situated within the ITA Nos. 1083/Mum/2023 M/s Allied Photographics India Ltd. Mumbai. jurisdiction ... within the municipal limits of Kanpur Municipal Corporation. Hence, the said land is not exempt from the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14)(i)(a)&(b) of IT Act. 3 In view of the above observations the assessment order passed by the A.O, without proper verification

Mr Ruder Mani Walia, Jalandhar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (3), Jalandhar

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

ITA 257/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.257/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 194DSection 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 250oSection 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Meka Kasi Viseswarudu, Vizianagaram vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Vizianagaram

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

ITA 212/VIZ/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.212/Viz/2020 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Meka Kasi Visweswarudu Vs. Income Tax Officer K-5 Pradeep Nagar Ward-1 Vt Agraharam Vizianagaram Vizianagaram [Pan : Abvpm2320H] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri YA Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri ON Hari Prasada Rao, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM श्री दुव्वूरु आर एल रेड्डी, न्याधयक सदस्य

Dhirubhai R. Patel, Na vs. Arivs.ITO, Ward-2, Navsari

ITA 190/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.190/Srt/2019 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Dhirubhai R Patel Income Tax Officer, Balwada, Hond, Taluka : Ward-2, Navsari Vs Chikli, Navsari-396521 Pan No: Bsepp 9971 J अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 27.04.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 10.07.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals),Valsad [For Short To As “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 24.01.2019 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 28.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act After Issuing Notice U/S 148. Dhirubhai R Patel 2. Even Otherwise The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Passing The Order U/S 147 By Making The Addition When He Did’Nt Make Any Addition On Issues Pertaining To The Reasons Recorded U/S 148(2) Of I.T. Act.

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 2(14)Section 254(1)

recorded that said land was agricultural land situated beyond eight kilometre away from Bilimora Municipality and assessee has shown same as exempted under section 2(14) of the Act. The Assessing Officer on verification of bank statement furnished by assessee noted that assessee has received an amount of Rs.15.00 lakh

Sanjay Atchut Poy Raiturcar, Margao vs. ITO, Ward - 4, Margao

ITA 185/PAN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & (Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Priyanka Kamat, ARFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54FSection 5A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH :: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON.VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON.JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri Sharad Goel, Raipur

In the result appeal of the revenue stands dismissed, in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 93/RPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR

Section 250(4)Section 45(3)

Chen HC), wherein it was concluded by the Hon’ble Madras Court that : “Capital assets had specifically been defined in Section 2 (14) to exclude agricultural land. 5.9 In view of the above submissions Ld AR requested to uphold the order of Ld CIT(A), wherein the addition made ... evidence against the assessee to prove that the land transferred was not an agricultural land eligible to be exempt within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, also no resemblance in the facts of present with regard to applicability of the case of Sariffabibi Mohamed

Anand Surana, Raipur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 192/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Surana, Nanesh Kripa, Civil Lines, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aosps5275H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K Meena, CIT-DR

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

authority certifying that the agricultural land sold by the assessee was situated beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits as mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was available on record; (ii) that no documents were available on record which would corroborate that the lands in question ... assessee was situated beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits as 16 Anand Surana Vs. Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G.) mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act was available on record ; (ii) that there were no documents available on record which would corroborate that the lands

Satish Anant Bhadri, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 949/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Kishore ChaudhariFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Deshpande

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

linked pension plan (and not investment in bonds or mutual fund units) which does not qualify as a capital asset as defined in Section 2(14) of the Act. The accretion in the value of the policy is, therefore, liable to tax as ‘Income from Other Sources’. Therefore, there were

M/S Wf Asian Smaller Companies Fund Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation Circle 4(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2013-14) M/S. Wf Asian Smaller बिधम/ Acit, Circle-4(3)(2) Companies Fund Ltd Room No. 1611, 16Th Vs. C/O Ankul Goyal, Azb & Floor, Air India Building, Partners A8, Sector-4, Nariman Point, Mumbai- Noida 201301. 400021. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacw5648R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul Goyal Revenue By: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ao Dated 19.01.2023 U/S 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Pursuant To The Direction Issued By The Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel (Drp) For Ay. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Challenging The Action Of The Ao To Have Reopened The Original-Scrutiny-Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act, After Four (4) Years [From The End Of The Relevant Assessment Year] Without Satisfying The Additional Condition Precedent As Prescribed In The Proviso To Section 147(1) Of The Act. Since The Assessee Has Raised The Legal Issue Assailing The Jurisdiction Of Ao To Have Issued Notice U/S 148 Of The Act, Proposing Re-Opening Of The Original Assessment [Framed Under Scrutiny Under Section 143(3) Of The Act], We Will Adjudicate It First. For Appreciating The Legal Issue, Let Us

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra/Ankul GoyalFor Respondent: Shri Soumedu Kumar Dash (Sr

Section 133CSection 139Section 142Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 147(1)Section 148Section 92E

Long term capital gain has been defined under section 2(39A), as capital gains arising from transfer of a Long term capital asset. Section 2(14) defines “Capital asset” and various exceptions and exclusions have been provided which are not treated as capital asset. Section 45 is the charging section ... seen that, firstly, shares in the company are treated as capital asset and no exception has been carved out in section 2(14), for excluding the equity shares and unit of equity oriented funds that they are not treated as capital asset. Secondly, any gains arising from transfer of Long

Meenu Arya, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Hapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargmeenu Arya, Vs. Ito, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam Ward-3(4), Rdc, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Abcpa7903P

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)Section 45Section 54Section 548Section 54B

incorrect fact that the land sold by assessee was not barren rural agricultural land and was capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and hence sale consideration received attracts long term capital gain. The ld counsel submitted that the AO himself agreed that ... agricultural land was situated on the national highway, the land sold by the assessee was undoubtedly a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act read with section 54B of the Act and thus chargeable to long term capital gain. The ld Sr. DR submitted that

Shri Bhawani Shankar Parashar, Indore vs. The DCIT/ACIT 1 (2), Indore

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 411/IND/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanishri Bhawani Shankar Pr. Cit-1 Prashar Indore 28, Lasudia Mori, Vijay Vs. Nagar, Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Bgbpp 2475 G Assessee By Shri S.N. Agrawal, Ar Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21.06.2023

Section 263

capital gain on transfer of Agricultural land even. when the land in question was not a capital ass et as per provision of section 2(14) of the Inco me Tax Act 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld Assessing