“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)

Amar Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Ward-1, Rewari

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 115/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Saxena, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)Section 54BSection 54F

limits or distance within 2 KMs is wrong and mistaken. Perhaps the pleadings of the assessee are based upon the amended provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) according to which the land situated beyond a distance of municipal limits of a town having population up to one lakh ... notified. The said notification is reproduced as under: INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961: NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 2(1A)(C), PROVISO, CLAUSE (II)(B) AND SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) : URBANISATION OF AREAS Notification No. [SO 9447] (File No. 164/3/87-ITA.I)], dated 6-1-1994 12 Amar Singh Whereas a draft notification

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Jammu vs. Shri Mohd Aslam Baggar, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 45(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer discussed relevant provisions of the Act before making additions to the returned income. He firstly discussed section 2(14)(iii) and held that since land under consideration falls within the municipal limits, therefore, the same cannot be regarded as agricultural for the purposes ... this clause, the expression "compensation or consideration" includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or other authority;" Section 2(14)(iii), which deals with agricultural land not being capital asset, reads as under: [(iii) agriculture land agricultural land— in India, not being land situate

Shri Hukumchand Choudhary, Indore vs. ITO (3), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 205/IND/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)Section 2(47)(v)Section 54F

Indore. The location of the land was within the municipal limits of Indore city, during the F.Y. 2011-12. Thus, as per the Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, the land sold was a capital asset thus the said transfer of property attracted Long Term Capital Gains

Smt. Purnima Das, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

ITA 95/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271D

deed and the sale deed in respect of the alleged agricultural land showed the land as vacate land. It was further submitted that Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act simply says agricultural land which are not within the specified distance from the municipalities or such municipalities whose population under ... from Dhenkanal Municipality (page-9 of the paper book submitted by the appellant). Except for legal jargon in respect of section 2(14)(iii), the appellant had not submitted any proof/corroborative evidences in support of her claim of carrying out agricultural operations before the A.O. Similarly in respect of deduction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hanuman Tube Well Co., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as assessee are dismissed

ITA 839/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 145(3)Section 2(14)Section 45

2,42,38,984/- from Ag. Land as income from capital gain whereas Ag. Land sold is not a capital asset as per section 2(14) (iii)(b) of the Act and therefore not liable for capital gain u/s 45 of the Act. . 2.1 Apropos Ground ... Rs.2,42,68,984/- from Agricultural land as income from Capital gain whereas the Agricultural land is not a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and, therefore, not liable for 11 DCIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR VS M/S. HANUMAN TUBEWELL CO. JAIPUR capital gain

ACIT, Central Circle- 26, New Delhi vs. Trilok Chand Chaudhary, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4892/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary DR

Section 132Section 153ASection 2(14)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Naresh Kantilal Thacker, Gandhidham vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/RJT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And

Dr. A.Ezhil Malar, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 3306/CHNY/2016[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Ble

For Respondent: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)

Assessing Officer treating the sale of agricultural land at Morai Village, Thiruvallur District as a capital asset as per sub-clause (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) and the sale proceeds of the same are exigible to Capital Gains. :: 2 :: 2.2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within ... subject land is not only located within the distance of 8 kms from the local limits, which is covered by Clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, but also requires the fulfilment of the condition that the Central Government has issued a notification under this Clause

Shirish M Dalvi, Kalyan vs. DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4640/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit Circle-23(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala 3Rd Floor, C-10, Pratyaksha Vs. Complex, Sahajanand Kar Bhavan, Bandra East, Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit Circle-23(3), Shirish M. Dalvi, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10 D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Vs. Bldg., Pratyakshakar Complex, Sahajanand Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shirish M. Dalvi, Dcit-29(3), D’ Block, 1St Floor, Zojwala Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C- Vs. Complex, Sahajanand 10, Pratyaksha Kar Chowk, Kalyan-421 301. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aadpd 0358 H

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 14. Copy of Circular No. 45 dated 57 to 58 -- 02.09.1970 regarding amendment to section 2(14)(iii) 10.1 In view of the additional evidences filed, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that matter may be restored back to the file

DCIT Cir 23(3), Mumbai vs. Shirish M Dalvi, Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the finding of Ld CIT(A). The ground No. four of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed

ITA 4317/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Chakrawarti Bafna, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward I(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

ITA 1946/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1945 & 1946/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010

For Appellant: Mr. I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीमहावीर "सह, उपा"य

Chakrawarti Bafna, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward I(5), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee in

ITA 1945/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A Nos.:1945 & 1946/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010

For Appellant: Mr. I. Dinesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

ACIT, Ncc - 11 (1), Chennai vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Chennai

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

ITA 302/CHNY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Anil Kumar Shantichand Mehta, Income Tax, No. 196, Govindappa Naicken Street, Non Corporate Circle 11(1), George Town, Chennai 600 001. Chennai 600 006. [Pan:Aavps4928E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Anand, Advdocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai, Dated 21.11.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: 1. The Order Of The Learned Cit (A) Is Contrary To Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Cit(A) Erroneously Held That The Assessee Had Not Claimed Exemption U/S.10(37) [P.8.2] Though The Assessee, Vide His Letter Dated 26-12-2018 Stated "The Compensation Of Rs.7,62,40,126/- Received Was Claimed Exempt U/S.10(37), However, It Was Erroneously Omitted To Be Mentioned In The Return Of Income Filed."

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand, Advdocate

Section 10(37)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 34Section 45Section 57

assessee before the Assessing Officer is that the land acquired by the Government qualifies as an agricultural land in rural area under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus, the land in question is not capital asset. Therefore, the compensation received for acquisition of rural agricultural land

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

within limits of BMRDA, that itself cannot be treated as the land is situated within the municipality or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. For this purpose, he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Page ... land is situated within the limit of municipality and moreover, BMRDA is not a municipal or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. This proposition is verified by the order of the Tribunal in the case of M.R. Pattabhiram (HUF) Vs. ACWT

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

gains tax 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date ... Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 23 of 78 18. Without prejudice, for the agricultural land to fall out of the purview of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii), the land should be situated beyond 8 kms from the local limits any municipality or cantonment board. This fact is acknowledged

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

submitted that the agricultural lands are located 8 kms beyond the limits of the municipal authority in accordance with the requirement of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and hence are excluded from the definition of ‘capital asset’. 5. Further, based on the documents found during the search ... agricultural land. b. It is not falling within 8 kms from the local limits of any Municipal or Cantonment Board as referred in section 2(14)(iii)(a) and also not falling within the notified area as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)