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

Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 42(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6591/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Bijayananda Prusethassessment Year: 2016-17 Pankaj Manohar Pardhi, Income Tax Officer, B-502, Yash Paradise, Sector 8, Vs. Ward 42 (3)(1), Airoli, Navi Mumbai-400708. Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2023, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. At The Outset, It Is Observed That There Is Delay Of 168 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal, On Which The Assessee By Filing A Duly Sworn Affidavit Dated 13-09-2025 Has Claimed That The Assessee Has Shifted To Dubai & Thus For The Last Many Years Is Not Residing In India. However, During The Recent Trip In India, The Assessee Became Aware About The Ongoing Appeal Proceedings & Passing Of The Impugned Order & Therefore, The Delay Of 168 Days Has Been Occurred, Which Was Neither Intentional Nor Mala-Fide But Because Of The Aforesaid Reasons.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Ld. SR. D.R
Section 14Section 147Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Hil (India) Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2034/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Hil (India) Ltd., Vs National 2Nd Floor, Core-6, E-Assessment Centre, Scope Complex, Lodhi Road, Delhi New Delhi-110003. Pan-Aaach0905Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ankur Sharma, Ca Respondent By Shri Pradumna Kumar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10031966 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 12.01.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Sections 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Nclt Vide Its Order Dated 30.07.2025 In Cp (Ib) No.404/(Pb)/2024 Admitted The Petition For Commencement Of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (“Cirp”) Against The Assessee Under Section 7 Of The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“The Code”) & Also Declared Moratorium In Terms Of Section 14 Of The Code. Further, The Adjudicating Authority Has Been Directed Appoint Interim Resolution Professional & To Take Necessary Steps As Per Ibc.

Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250Section 7