Section 14 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 14 is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 of the 685 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 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.

KOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER. 367 50.(1987) 3 SCC 544: MADHAV AYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 51
10 SCC 1 · 2014 · Supreme Court
250
citing judgments

The judgment in Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. does not appear to be directly cited for a specific income tax proposition in the provided passages. The passages merely list it as one of several cases cited in subsequent judgments, without detailing its specific contribution to the legal reasoning.

Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction
126 Taxmann.com 132 · 2021 · Supreme Court
192
citing judgments

Once a resolution plan is approved under Section 31(1) of the IBC, claims not included in the plan are extinguished and cannot be pursued. This applies to statutory dues owed to the government and other authorities.

East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT
42 ITR 49 · 1961 · Supreme Court
147
citing judgments

Rental income from immovable property owned by an assessee must be assessed under the head 'Income from House Property' (Section 22), even if the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate or property development and leasing. This emphasizes the mandatory classification of income under its specific statutory head.

Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 2004 Supp (4) SCR 35. State of Jharkhand v Ambay Cements
1 SCC 368 · 2005 · Supreme Court
146
citing judgments

Mandatory provisions in taxation statutes must be strictly complied with. Non-compliance with a mandatory provision results in the cancellation of any concession granted.

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. 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.

United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. CIT
32 ITR 688 · 1957 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

The heads of income specified in the Income Tax Act are mutually exclusive, requiring any item of income to be charged and computed solely under its specific statutory head, with Section 56 (Income from Other Sources) serving as a residuary provision.

CIT v. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd.
243 ITR 48 · 2000 · Supreme Court
94
citing judgments

A subsequent amendment cannot impose a new tax burden or liability for a period when such liability did not exist. Therefore, additional tax or penalty cannot be levied for non-disclosure of income made taxable retrospectively by an amendment not in force at the time of the original return.

ACG Associated Capsule Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central IV, Mumbai
3 SCC 321 · 2022 · Reported
89
citing judgments

Profits of a business are computed under the head 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and then reduced by specific receipts mentioned in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC. This means that for the purposes of Section 80HHC, only profits computed under the business head are considered, with subsequent adjustments for specified receipts.

Judgments on Section 14

M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-6(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limini

ITA 1227/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1227/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1228/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1229/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit Cen. Cir-6(1), M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd. बनाम/ R. No. 1905, Air India 224-230, Bellasis Road, Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Alexandra Cinema Hall, Mumbai-400 021 Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccr0266J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 909/Mum/2019 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S Raj Oil Mills Ltd. Acit Cen. Cir-6(1), R. No. 1905, Air India Building, बनाम/ 224-230, Bellasis Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Alexandra Cinema Hall, Vs. Nagpada, Mumbai-400 008 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaccr0266J (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 04.07.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 04.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 14Section 143(3)Section 178(6)Section 7

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2181/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4

DCIT Corporate Circle 1(2), Chennai vs. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2180/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2180 & 2181/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Chennai Metro Rail Limited, Income Tax, Administrative Building, Chennai Metro Corporate Circle 1(2), Rail Depot, P.H. Road, Opp. To Daniel Chennai 600 034. Thomas School, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107. [Pan: Aadcc2233K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 4, Chennai Dated 14.05.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. Since Common Ground Involved, Both The Appeals Were Heard & Being Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Only Common Ground Raised In Both The Appeals Relates To Deletion Of Addition Made Towards Interest Income.

For Appellant: Shri M. Rajan, CITFor Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Section 14Section 4