“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)

Rajeev Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-25(1), New Delhi

ITA 66/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Royrajeev Kumar Gupta Vs. Acit, Circle 25(1) 10, Deepali Pitampura, Cr Building New Delhi - 110034 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aerpg9858F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Harpreet Kaur Hansra

Section 115BSection 139(9)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 45Section 69

that the assessee has claimed exemption of capital gain on the ground that the asset sold was not a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act which as per the show cause notice remained unsubstantiated. This is not factually correct as the copies of the sale deed ... status of land continued to be agricultural land. It may kindly be noted that to qualify the particular land being land falling in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act the assessee also needs to prove that the land is situate beyond the specified distance from the municipal limits

ACIT, Circle-30(1), New Delhi vs. Kundan Veer Singh Bhullar, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 71/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ruchesh Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 68

Rs.1,90,15,785/-. 10 10. During the appellate proceedings before CIT(A), the assessee in his submission has highlighted the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) which clearly specifies two conditions to be fulfilled in order to qualify for agricultural land. Firstly it should be outside the jurisdiction ... electricity, water connection & other basic amenities. Ld. CIT(A) concluded as follows; 9.5 It is seen that in view of the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act 1951, the said land is clearly not an agricultural land. Further in the case of assessee remand report

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

notification dated 16.04.2007 was included within GHMC, therefore, the same fell within the meaning of “capital asset” as per the express provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. Also, the A.O. observed, that now when the agricultural land situated at Village: Manchirevula on 07.09.2007 was situated within ... land sold by the assessee at the time of sale was an “urban land” and hence, a “capital asset” within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, therefore, the gain arising on the sale of the same was exigible to tax. Accordingly, the A.O. based

Rakesh Dubey, Katra Moholla Old Bus Stand Ashoknagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

municipal limits of Ashoknagar. Based on this information, the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had sold a capital asset in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b)(l) of the Act. Since the assessee did not offer any capital gain on the sale of this capital asset and also

Mahendra Rathi, Bikaner vs. ITO, Bikaner

ITA 299/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur28 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (Virtual) JODHPUR BEFORE DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Chudaji Thakor, Gandhinagar, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gandhinagar, Gujarat

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

ITA 301/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 250(1)Section 69A

account. The contention of the assessee that the land sold by the assessee was rural agricultural land and not a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, should be duly examined by the Assessing Officer. The assessee will be free to produce the additional evidences brought

Income Tax Officer, C.R Building I.P Estate vs. Dpag Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3237/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Dpag Infrastructure Pvt. C.R. Building Ltd., New Delhi C-28, 2Nd Floor, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcd5880H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manpreet Singh, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

municipal committees does not exceed one lakh, the relevant clause for determining whether the said agricultural land is a ‘capital Asset’ would be section 2(14)(iii)(b)(I) i.e whether the agricultural land is situated at a distance of less than two kilometers from the local limits ... well as Sohna Municipality. Hence, the appellants agricultural land is not a 4 | P a g e ‘Capital Asset’ within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b)(I) of the I.T Act,1961. Hence, in light of the above discussion it is held that the assessee’s agricultural land

Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Gautaman, Chennai

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

ITA 2753/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2753/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Rajamanickam Gautam, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Vs. No.65, Old No.46, Chennai. Defence Colony, Nandambakkam, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Apgpg 6055G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2025

For Appellant: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri N.V. Krishnan, Advocate

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 45(3)

also situated beyond the specified limit of the municipality, then the said land should be treated as an agricultural land as defined under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifabibi Mohammed Ibrahim

Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

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

ITA 310/COCH/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Assessment Year: 2020-21 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer .......... Appellant Oittannmakm, Koduvally, Kozhikode 673572 [Pan: Bbwpb4939D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.05.2024 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 23.02.2024 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2020-21. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Deriving Income Under The Head ‘Agriculture’. The Return Of Income For Ay 2020-21 Was Filed On 21.12.2020 Declaring Income Of Rs. 4,60,00,000/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kozhokode

For Appellant: Shri C.B.M. Warrier, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

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

appeal was filed before the CIT(A), contending that the subject lands were agricultural lands and not capital asset within the ambit of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and the appellant also produced the evidence in the form of certificate issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Division ... particular land is agricultural land, then it 6 Elavanchalil Abdul Basheer cannot be included in the definition of capital asset as defined under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Even then, if such lands are found to be situated within the distance specified in items (a) &(b) of section

Abdul Aziz, Dudu vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Lal Kothi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1025/JPR/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025AY 2012-2013

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50C

above certificates issued by the Competent authorities prove that the impugned land does not come in the purview of Capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii)(b). The land being agricultural is further proved by copy of Jamabandi. Sale Consideration is not taxable: Section 2(14) defines capital asset ... section agricultural land is not a capital asset but certain agricultural land falling in specified area are held as capital asset. As per section 2(14)(iii)(b) an agricultural land situated in any area within such distance, not being more than 8 kms, from the local limits

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

assessee failed to produce acceptable evidence to demonstrate that the land was agricultural in nature or that the claim of exemption under section 2(14)(iii) could be supported by competent certification. Consequently, an addition of Rs.1,10,75,262/- was made under section 69 of the Act as unexplained

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 450/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

Niranjanbhai D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 449/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Jimit Shah, AR

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

ITO, Jaipur vs. Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur

ITA 84/JPR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

tribunal to verify the distance so as to determine the fact that the land fulfill the criteria as prescribed in the provisions of section 2(14(iii)(b) of the Act. In that matter, the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 02.12.2019 set aside the matter to determine the distance ... Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding of Assessing Officer as well as CIT (A) and holding the agricultural land as exempted under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, despite the fact that the said land was falling within 8 kms of the municipal limit and thereby deleting

Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 927/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

Kusum Yadav, Indore vs. ITO 1(2), Indore

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

ITA 518/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Bagirath Mal Biyani & Sh. Udayan Das Gupta

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 263Section 54BSection 68

alleged short term capital gain. That the land being rural agricultural land was not a' capital asset as per provision of Section 2(14)(iii). The addition made, therefore may very kindly be deleted. 4 That the learned CIT(A] erred in maintaining addition Rs.20,00,000/- made ... after verifying the details. The only dispute here is whether the lands involved were a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act or otherwise. 9. 2. The assessment order, the averments made by the appellant in this regard and the material available

Suresh Bhagwandas Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 23(1)(6), Mumbai

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

ITA 6292/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailsuresh Bhagwandas Mehta, B-4 Mehta House, Jvpd Scheme, Vl Mehta Road, Vile Parle West Mumbai – 400049 ............... Appellant Pan : Aadpm8459J

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 54B

case where the land may be used for the agricultural purpose, however, the same being covered under one of the clauses of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act be considered as a capital asset. Therefore, from the careful perusal of the provisions of section

Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1465/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1465/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archanaben Rajendrasingh Deval बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad – 380 014 42, Tirth Bhumi Co-Op. Society Near Dhara Soap Factory Nikol Gam Road, Nikol, Ahmedabad – 382 350 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Ahzpd 2745 D (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 01/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02/04/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.03.2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)"], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015–16. The Appeal Arises From The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Tds Ward-1, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Shri Jaimin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 194ISection 201Section 201(1)Section 250

local Panchayat. In view of these facts, the assessee argued that the land was covered by the exclusion set out in section 2(14)(iii)(b)(II) of the Act, which provides that land shall not be treated as a capital asset if it is situated beyond a certain distance ... Gandhinagar Municipality. Based on this fact, the Ld.CIT(A) inferred that the land did not qualify as "agricultural land" within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) also denied the assessee the benefit of the first proviso to section

Lala Ram Bagra, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 1327/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT a

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 50CSection 548Section 54F

question is situated within the municipal limit of Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur. Therefore, the same is a capital asset as defined in section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 and the assessee is liable to be taxed under the head long term capital gain

ACIT, Cochin vs. Sri.P.C.Jose, Cochin

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed and Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 84/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin18 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Keshav Dubey, Jm Assessment Year: 2008-09 P.C. Jose .......... Appellant Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Respondent Circle - 2(1), Kochi Assessment Year: 2008-09 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax .......... Appellant Circle - 2(1), Kochi Vs. P.C. Jose .......... Respondent Brothers Agencies, Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] Assessee By: Shri R. Krishnan, Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das & Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 20.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.03.2025 P.C. Jose

For Appellant: Shri R. Krishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das &

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 40

gain arising on sale of such lands to be exempt from tax, as it is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. However, the AO was of the opinion that it is a capital asset by citing the following reasons: - P.C. Jose ... sale of such properties on the ground that the lands were not situated within the distance as specified in Item A & B of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and claimed to be agricultural land based on the classification in the Revenue records of the Govt