ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. KRUPESH JAYANTILAL PATEL, AHMEDABAD

ITA 921/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 January 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, relying on previous coordinate bench orders for the same transaction involving joint-owners, which had held the land to be agricultural land and not a capital asset under Section 2(14). The Tribunal affirmed that there was no merit in interfering with the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee's Cross Objections regarding the validity of the assessment reopening were dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, contending that the land sold by the assessee should be considered a capital asset and not agricultural land under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act. The land in question was located in village Adalaj, Gandhinagar district, and was reportedly situated outside the 5 KM radius of the Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation.

What were the issues?

Whether the land sold by the assessee qualifies as agricultural land not being a capital asset, or if it falls within the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(14),Section 2(14)(iii)(a),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, AR
Hearing: 17/12/2026Pronounced: 30/01/2026

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal by the Revenue and the corresponding Cross Objection by the assessee have been directed a

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)

All 1,130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(14) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →