“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)

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

claimed that the said land is situated beyond the Municipal limits 10 kms. and therefore, it is not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. According to the Ld. A.R., the sale of agricultural land outside municipal limit is to be treated as agricultural land ... within limits of BMRDA, that itself cannot be treated as the land is situated within the municipality or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. For this purpose, he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Page

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2556/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.2556/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, D.R

Section 143(3)

stores or raw material held for the purpose of business or profession of the assessee's falling within clause (i) of exception to section 2(14) of the Act that defines capital asset. The same reasoning would be applicable to the Foreground Information which the assessee was privy ... partakes the character of stock-in-trade for companies like that of the assessee was not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and therefore the sum received by the assessee cannot fall within the ambit of the head of "Income from Capital Gain

M/S Mitchell Associates, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1718/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K Gopal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 54E

been held by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. Under that provision, a capital asset means property of any kind held by assessee, whether or not connected with ... asset or the extinguishment of any right therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. The word "property", used in section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act, is a word of the widest amplitude and the definition has re-emphasised this by use of the words

Tree Hill Estates Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1395/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

effected or dependent upon or flowing from the transfer of a share or shares of a company registered or incorporated outside India;” 18. Section 2(14) of the defines "capital asset" as property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession ... firm, the credit to the partners capital account on revaluation cannot be looked at adversely. 23. Capital asset has been defined in section 2(14) of the Act, as meaning "Property" of any kind held by the assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession. The above exhaustive

DCIT, CC-5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Rajenderkumar Miglani, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2925/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) बिधम/ Rajindrakumar Miglani Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Air India Building, Nariman Road, Carnac Bunder, Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400009. & Cross Objection No.20/Mum/2021 आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 2925/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajindrakumar Miglani बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-5(4) Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Uttam House, 69, P „Dmello Vs. Road, Carnac Bunder, Air India Building, Nariman Mumbai-400009. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpm7288D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (Dr) Assessee By: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul Hakani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeal As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 25.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010-11. C.O. No.20/Mum2021 A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: Shri K Shivaram & Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyp (DR)

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

gains tax 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date ... Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 23 of 78 18. Without prejudice, for the agricultural land to fall out of the purview of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii), the land should be situated beyond 8 kms from the local limits any municipality or cantonment board. This fact is acknowledged

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 313/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 312/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri.H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 311/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri. H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 310/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore vs. Shri.H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 309/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1497/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1496/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1495/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Shri H B Sudarshan, Chikkamangalur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are dismissed and revenue’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1494/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

submitted that the agricultural lands are located 8 kms beyond the limits of the municipal authority in accordance with the requirement of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and hence are excluded from the definition of ‘capital asset’. 5. Further, based on the documents found during the search ... above land was duly converted as non-agricultural land and sale of above land constitutes capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Act. Further the assessee placed following evidence with regard to agricultural income earned from the above property and also produced details