Which cases are most cited on Section 2(14)(iii)?

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha (105 ITR 133) — 93 citing judgments; PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd. (124 Taxmann.com 358) — 54 citing judgments; CIT v. Siddharth J Desai (139 ITR 628) — 45 citing judgments; Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana) (224 Taxmann 178) — 38 citing judgments; Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (248 ITR 432) — 25 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 2(14)(iii)?

BharatTax indexes 225 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 2(14)(iii) (Section 2(14)(iii)).

← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)225 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii) is CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha (105 ITR 133), cited in 93 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii)

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha

105 ITR 133 · 1976 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The character of land as agricultural land or a capital asset is a question of fact determined by the cumulative effect of all circumstances. Classification in revenue records alone is not conclusive evidence of agricultural use; actual agricultural operations must be proven.

PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd.

124 Taxmann.com 358 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

The case is cited for various issues including the definition of capital assets, reassessment procedures under sections 153A and 153C, and the effect of clarificatory amendments.

CIT v. Siddharth J Desai

139 ITR 628 · 1983 · High Court

citing judgments

This case lays down 13 specific tests and factors for determining whether land qualifies as agricultural land under the Income-tax Act. It holds that obtaining permission to sell agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes shortly before the sale does not automatically alter its agricultural character.

Sudhir Kumar Shah (HUF) v. CIT-III, Ludhiana)

224 Taxmann 178 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

The addition of cash deposits to an assessee's income under Section 68 is justified when the Assessment Officer notices huge cash deposits, as the onus is on the assessee to explain their nature and source.

Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

248 ITR 432 · 2001 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Expenses are to be apportioned among various units based on turnover, a method approved by the Supreme Court. The method of allocating exempt income by way of dividends to total gross revenue is also upheld.

Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT

209 ITR 946 · 1994 · High Court

citing judgments

The potential for non-agricultural use or the purchaser's intention does not alter the agricultural character of land for capital gains purposes if it was agricultural at the time of sale and prior use. Market conditions leading to a high price do not change the essential nature of the land.

Tulla Veerender v. Addl. CIT

160 TTJ 435 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

Transfer of land not falling under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, where the land is recorded as agricultural in revenue records and the assessee is engaged in agricultural operations, cannot be considered a transfer of a capital asset.

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax

127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court

citing judgments

If agricultural operations are being carried out on land at the time of sale and revenue records indicate it is agricultural land, a presumption arises that it is agricultural in character, which the revenue must rebut. Permission to convert land to non-agricultural use does not render it non-agricultural if not obtained before the sale.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)(iii)

Income Tax Officer (TDS-3), Ahmedabad vs. Tarun Santramdas Varma, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2549/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kmble

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate

Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 250Section 46A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT Ms SUCHITRA KMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 687/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos: 685, 686 & 687/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16) Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward Dhamtari, Gandhi Chowk, Kurud, Shankardan Road, Village:Haraftarai, Dhamtari-493663, Chhattisgarh. Dhamtari-493773, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aqdpc2033J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Veekas S Sharma, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 12/03/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

such land does not Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamatari constitute a "capital asset" within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Hence, the penalty so initiated and/or imposed is bad-in-law and may kindly be cancelled. 2. Without prejudice to the above, alternatively

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 686/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, Dhamtari vs. ITO, Ward-Dhamtari, Dhamtari

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as above

ITA 685/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Veekas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Internation Taxation) Vadodara, Vadodara vs. Ahmed Mahomed Pandor, Bharuch

ITA 1667/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha1.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1667/Ahd/2025 – By Revenue 2.आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1602/Ahd/2025 – By Assessee (िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17) 1. The Acit 1. Ahmed Mahomed बनाम (Internation Taxation) Pandor / Vadodara – 390 007 Moti Masjid Falia V/S. Jitali Ankleshwar Bharuch – 393 001 2. Ahmed Mahomed 2. The Acit Circle Pandor Int. Txn, Ankleshwar Vadodara – 390 007 Bharuch – 393 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Cwupp 2469 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) (") यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/03/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Are Cross-Appeals One By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/06/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

last census of 2011 and, therefore, it was out of the definition of capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b)(1) of the Act. Her further observed that the said land was agricultural land at the time of its sale was in financial year

Ahmed Mahomed Pandor, Bharuch vs. ACIT, Circle Int.Txn., Vadodara, Baroda

ITA 1602/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Parvathaneni Praveen, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiao.4Tt.A /Ita.No.1271/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Income tax Act wherein, sub section (iii) specifically excludes the agricultural land in India from the definition of capital asset. The provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of IT Act, starts with words ‘agricultural land in India ....... Nowhere in section 2(14) it is mentioned that non-agricultural land

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

held that since the land in question does not fall under definition of a Capital asset in view of the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, and the assessee is engaged in agricultural operations on such land, the impugned transfer cannot be considered as transfer

Narottam Atmaram Warde, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3139/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 250(6)

Sharma v. CIT 209 ITR 946 held that Potential non-agricultural use or purchaser's intention does not change agricultural character. 2.4 Section 2(14)(iii) excludes "Agricultural land in India" (subject to distance conditions) There is no exclusion for grass land, no requirement of crop rotation, no requirement

Sh. Shankar Lal S/O Sh. Bastiram Through Legal Heir Smt. Sudarshana Devi, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panchkula

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1234/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1234/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Shankar Lal S/O Shri Bastiram, The Ito, Through L/H Smt. Sudershana Devi, Vs Ward-4, Village – Kaimbwala, Chandigarh. Panchkula. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Abgpl9378P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT Sr.DR

Section 159(2)Section 2(14)

certified to be agricultural land by the Tehsildar, Zone Pinjore, Distt. Panchula and accordingly, falls outside the definition of "capital asset" under section 2(14) (iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Report of Tehsildar and Population Census is also annexed. 6. That further, on 29.03.2012, within 7 months ... credit of acquisition cost. The AO has to determine whether it actually falls within the ambit of capital asset or not mentioned in Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act because it was a rural agricultural land and if it falls outside the municipal limit at a distance

Income Tax Officer- Ward-1/Jao, Nagercoil vs. Arulanandham Ber Syril Antow, Nagercoil

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act, so as to attract capital gains tax under section 45 of the Act. Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act specifically excludes agricultural land in India from the definition of “capital asset”, except where such land is situated; 1. Within

ACIT Central Circle 1(3), Ahmedabad vs. Krupesh Jayantilal Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 921/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.921/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR

Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Municipal limits in all direction whereas land in question is outside the 5 KM radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and as per Section 2(14)(iii)(a) capital asset means property of any kind hold by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession and agricultural land

Vikas Agarwal, Sambhal vs. Income Tax Officer, Sambhal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6268/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Saim, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

6268_DEL_2025_Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. M/S Dee Ess Properties Private Limited, Ghaziabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 4070/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69

before us considering the CBDT Circular No. 17/2015 dated 06.10.2015 on the issue of measurement of difference of land for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, contents whereof are appearing at page 30 of the impugned order considering the difference in the rate the land

Mr Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 234/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 45(2)Section 54BSection 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA

Mayur Kanubhai Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1992)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 5600/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Rishav PatawariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56Section 56(2)(viib)

nature of rural agricultural land and, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Act are not applicable. With reference to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the Ld. AR submitted the said “distance certificate” as additional evidence in accordance with Rule 29 of the Income ... order to further strengthen the submissions, the Ld. AR also filed a “distance certificate” before the Tribunal, which supports the applicability of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and remand the issue to the file of the Ld. Jurisdictional

Smt. Kusum Kujwal, Nainital vs. PCIT, Baireilly

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 102/DDN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 45(2)Section 50C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal, Accountant

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Dharam Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Dharam Singh, Ward-1(1), 604, Sector-14, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Actps5801J Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 147Section 148Section 6

Rural Agriculture land and Urban Agriculture land as understood from the definition of capital asset being an agricultural land as defined in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. A land is said to be Rural Agricultural Land: (a) If situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction

Mukul Monga, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2936/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

kilometers from the nearest municipal corporation (Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon), and therefore does not fall within the definition of "capital asset" as per Section 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring

Lalchand Narayan Bhakt, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 2, Jalna

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

kilometers from the end of the Municipal limits of Jalna city and therefore is a capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. Since the assessee did not furnish his return of income for the year under consideration as required