DCIT v. Capital Local Area Bank Limited\n

123 TTJ 918Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2009#22240 most cited
3

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Judgments citing DCIT v. Capital Local Area Bank Limited\n

Krishna Kishore Reddy Manyam, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 58/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2008-09
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 548Section 54BSection 54F

…otified distance of 8 Kms from the Hyderabad Municipality i.e a separate municipality. As observed hereinabove, the Tribunal, while so concluding had drawn support from the order of ITAT, Amritsar in the case of DCIT Vs. Capital Local Area Bank Limited (2009) 123 TTJ 918 (Amritsar). For the sake of clarity, the observations recorded by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Srinivas Pandit (HUF) Vs. ITO, Ward 7(4), Hyderabad are culled out as under: 8. We have also carefully gone through the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Section 2(14)(iii) (b) clearly says that any area within such distance not being mor…

Kulwant Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(5), Mohali

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 395/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)Section 54B

…laws wherein it has been held that the area which is outside the municipality and having population less than 10000, the land would not be a capital asset as per the provisions of sec 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act: a) DCIT vs Capital Area bank Ltd. as reported in 123 TTJ 918 b) K. Parameshwaran vs. Income Tax Officer 2 ITD 371 c) Income Tax Officer vs Narain Singh 12 TTJ 396 d) Income Tax Officer vs. Chander HUF (2011) 47 SOT 17 (Chennai) e) Income Tax Officer vs. Uppala Bhatkavatsala Rao 12 Taxman 40 6.6 It was further submitted that it has even been held by various Hon'ble Courts that the certificate by the officia…

Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated

ITA 678/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hearing Of This Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

…tinue to be excluded from the term ‘capital asset’." 12. The ld AR has also relied upon the following case laws: Sr. no. Decision Remarks/findings 1 DCIT vs. Capital Area When the land for all administrative 24 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO Bank Ltd. 123 TTJ 918 controls falls within the jurisdiction of Phagwada municipality it cannot be considered within the 8 km of municipal limit of Jalandhar. Urbanisation of an area, then, falls within the exclusive domain of the concerned municipality exercising regulatory as well as administrative control over such area. It is such concerned municipality, id est, t…

DCIT v. Capital Local Area Bank Limited\n (123 TTJ 918) — Cited in 3 Judgments | BharatTax