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

Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Sanghvi, Deesa vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the application filed by the assessee for withdrawal of appeal is allowed

ITA 222/SRT/2021[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.222/Srt/2021 (Ay 2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Shri Kirankumar Rasiklal Principal Commissioner Of Sanghvi Income-Tax-4, Ahmedabad, Vs 1, Paras Society, Room No.311, “C” Block, 3Rd Neminathnagar Road, Deesa- Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, 385535 Opp. Polytechnic, Ambawadi, Pan : Afops 0131 D Ahmedabad-380015 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rushin G Patel, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Ashish Pophare, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 21.11.2023 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 21.11.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ahmedabad-4, [For Short To As ‘Ld. Pcit’] Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 03.03.2022 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. The Impugned Order Passed On 30.03.2020, However, In Form-36, Date Of Communication Of The Order Mentioned As 19.08.2020 & The Appeal Was Filed On 22.11.2021. 2. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld.Ar) For The Assessee Submits That Due To Bonafide Belief That Surat Bench Of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Surat Bench) Has Jurisdiction, The Assessee Filed Present Appeal. The Basis Of Belief Of Assessee Was That For Ay 2015-16, The Revenue Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-4 Ahmadabad Before Kirankumr R Sanghvi

Section 14Section 254(1)Section 263