MAHENDER REDDY PATNAM,BANJARA HILLS vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE13(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1354/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 August 2026AY 2013-1414 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 56 days. The appeal concerned an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of long-term capital gains from the sale of property, which the assessee claimed was agricultural land situated beyond municipal limits. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's addition.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond the specified limits of the nearest municipality, thus not a capital asset. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold was agricultural land and situated beyond the specified limits to be excluded from the definition of 'capital asset'. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14)(iii),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 25.04.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 56 days in

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)

All 236 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →