← 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)

Bipin Amratlal Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 18 (1) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5959/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(14)Section 251

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & Shri RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JM I.T.A. No.5959/Mum/2019

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trib) where it is held that when the land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land ... agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trib) where it is held that when the land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land ... agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trib) where it is held that when the land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land ... agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trib) where it is held that when the land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land ... agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R
Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

Learned AO has failed to appreciate both in facts and in law, that tne property does not fall within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and has failed to rely on the various judicial views. 5. The Learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that ... said land is situated beyond 10 kms. Away from the nearest Municipal limit and therefore, it is not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Income- tax Act,1961 ['the Act' for short]. According to the Ld. A.R., the sale of agricultural land outside municipal limit

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

shall be taken to be nil ; 12. It was submitted by the Assessee that the expression “Property of any kind” used in section 2(14) are of widest amplitude and include not only tangible assets but also intangible rights. It may be either corporeal or incorporeal. Corporeal Page ... complete ownership of the background IPR and joint ownership of the foreground IPR and the same is capital asset for assessee as per section 2(14) of the Act. The transfer of capital asset definition incudes relinquishment of the asset ; or the extinguishment of any rights therein. Relinquishment means withdrawn

Vinod Parasmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 3, Thane

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

ITA 1883/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vinod Parasmal Jain, Dcit, Circle 3, Thane, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle 1302/A, Vikas Palms, Dr. Vs. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Civil Industrial Estate, Road No. 16Z, Hospital, Thane(W)-400 604. Thane-400 601 Pan No. Aaopj 9371 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Subhodh Ratnaparkhi, ARFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR
Section 2(14)

furnished by the Vinod Parasmal Jain 2 appellant and not appreciating that the land sold was agricultural land covered by exception contained in section 2(14) (in) of the IT. Act 1961 and accordingly the surplus arising on sale of such land was not liable ... According to the assessee, the land was not a capital asset as the said agricultural land is covered by the exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and gains arising on sale thereof do not lead to any income liable to Vinod Parasmal Jain 5 be taxed

Mr. Subhash Hari Gode, Thane vs. ITO Ward 2 (4), Kalyan

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

ITA 1708/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1708/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2015-16) Mr. Subhash Hari Gode बिधम/ Ito, Ward -2(4) Sakhroli Post Atgaon Tal- Kalyan. Vs. Shahapura Dist- Thane- 421301. Pan No: Bllpg0668M

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri T. Shankar (Sr. AR)
Section 143(2)Section 153Section 2(14)

fact that, the said property is Agricultural Land and same shall not be considered as capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14) of Income Tax Act 1961. 5) The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making the addition to the total income of the appellant by specifying irrelevant ... paper-book. The learned AR further pointed out that both conditions of population and distance as contained in Section 2(14) have been fulfilled by the assessee and, accordingly, the sale of agricultural land does not fall within the definition of Capital Asset and, therefore, any gain arising from sale

Sri. P. Shyamaraju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

Sri. P. Shyamaraju, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

M/S Shyamaraju & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

M/S Shyamaraju & Co (India) Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

ACIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Shyamaraju & Co India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1650/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Mar 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.S.Praveena, CIT-DR
Section 54FSection 79A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Ms.Padmavathy S, AM ITA

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

long term capital assets. Here it is pertinent to note that in common parlance a capital asset connotes a property, right or advantage. Section 2(14) also defines a `capital asset’ to mean `property of any kind held by an assessee…..’ It also refers to some positive possession. Further

ITO 25(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Kirit Raojibhai Patel, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2339/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Sri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Income Tax Officer- Kirit Raojibhai Patel 25(2)(5) 5Th Floor Ram Niwas, 34, Room No. 506, C-10, Vallabhnagar, N.S. Road, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Juhu, Vile Parele(W), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpp3139J Assessee Represented By : Shri Rashmikant Choksey, Ar Department Represented By : Shri K.K. Mishra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2022

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2Section 45Section 50Section 54Section 54F

Society decided to transfer the same to a Developer for a consideration. The Society transferred a valuable right, which is capital asset under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The right created by the DCR attaches to the land owned by the Society which was acquired

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2223/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

assessee contended that the land sold was not taxable as the same not being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. The transfer of these lands to the said company was by way of sale deed dated 16.07.2007. Also the lands transferred were ... 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

Shri D.Dasappa, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

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

ITA 2222/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri L. Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Shoury Arya, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 132Section 153CSection 2(14)Section 80

assessee contended that the land sold was not taxable as the same not being a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. The transfer of these lands to the said company was by way of sale deed dated 16.07.2007. Also the lands transferred were ... 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

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1116/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

provisions contained in the Act instead of confining its effect to the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. As noted, Section 2(14) of the Act defines "capital asset" inter alia as a property of any kind held by an assessee. Section 2(47) of the Act defines

M/S Godha Realtors Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1115/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R

provisions contained in the Act instead of confining its effect to the Transfer of Property Act and the Registration Act. As noted, Section 2(14) of the Act defines "capital asset" inter alia as a property of any kind held by an assessee. Section 2(47) of the Act defines