← 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
93
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
54
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
45
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
38
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
25
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
23
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
22
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
21
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)

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sharp Business Systems India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

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

Ramkaran Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 439/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: him and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

your kind perusal and consideration. In view of the above, the Agricultural Lands sold by the assessee were not "CAPITAL ASSET" under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being not filling under any specified MC and as such sale thereof is not liable for Capital Gains

Najma Siddiqui, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

ITA 606/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Najma Siddiqui Ito 3(1) 131, Housing Board Bhopal बनाम/ Colony Kohe Fiza Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Anepb8802G Assesseeby Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that land sold was not a capital asset but the same is a rural agricultural land i.e. not a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and secondly the AO had not considered the index cost of acquisition of agricultural land sold. Further

Mr. Jobanji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO. Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.264/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Jobanji Thakor The Ito F-40, Abugiri Society बनाम / Ward-3(2)(2) Tal. Daskroi, Jagatpur V/S. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad - 382 470 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aknpt 2930 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018, Confirming The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

land sold by the assessee did not qualify as agricultural land but rather fell within the Municipality/AUDA/Corporation limits as per the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that the land was a capital asset and subject to capital gains tax. 2

Vaghubha Danubha Zala, Wankaner vs. Assessment Unit/ the ITO, Ward-1, Wankaner

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

ITA 396/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaamet Steed /Ita No.396/Rit/2023

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

village as certified by Dhuva Gram Panchayat is about 3037 only. Therefore, the land sold was a rural agricultural land which as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act is not a capital asset. In this regard, the appellant had submitted copy of the sale deed and certificate

Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bardoli

ITA 506/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 170, Tarsada Bar, Al Mandvi, Surat – Ward – 2, 394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkipp5896G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2025

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

account of alleged long term capital gain on the sale of agriculture land not being capital asset within meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(III). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income ... provision of section 50C to compute the capital gain on sale of agriculture land which is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner

Venkataram Spinning Mills Private Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

other name” include the capital region also. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 2(14)(iii) (a) and (b) of the Act provides as under : Section 2(14) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (14)"capital asset" means— (iii) agricultural land ... cantonment board etc., still continues to be excluded from the definition of 'capital asset'. Accordingly, in view of sub-clause (b) of 13 section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even under the amended definition of expression 'capital asset', the agricultural land situated in rural areas continues to be excluded

Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, Pali vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2532/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, V The Income Tax Officer, Bazar Peth, At Post Pali,Taluka S Ward-4, Panvel. Sudhagad, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 410205. Pan: Aatpp5508P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Miss Indira R Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 10.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order . The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition To The Extent Of Rs.8,50,834/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T.Act 1961, On Account Of Difference Between The Actual Purchase Consideration Of Agricultural Land At Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad & The Value As Per

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

taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur Trib.) [2024]. In the present case, the land purchased is rural agricultural land covered exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus not a capital asset. The Hon. CIT(A) however dismissed the ground by stating that "As this issue was not raised

Netrananda Nayak, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 148

limits of Puri Municipality, therefore, in order to determine whether the land in question falls under the mischief of sub- clause (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the distance of 2 kms has to be taken into account in terms of notification dated 6-01-1994. Further

Shri Rajesh Ramchandra Dake, Panvel vs. Dy CIT CC-1, Mumbai

ITA 3/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2025AY 2008-09
For Appellant: \nShri Rajesh Ramchandra DakeFor Respondent: \nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax
Section 10Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. For clarity and ready reference, let us peruse the definition of capital assets as defined in Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act prior to amendment made vide Finance Act 2013, which reads as under:\n\n\"Definition of Capital Asset under ... Section 2(14)(iii)(b)\n\n(14) \"capital asset\" means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include\n(i)\n(ii)\n(iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate

Omprakash, Dholpur vs. ITO Ward 4 Bharatpur, Bharatpur

In the result, the both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1255/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rahual Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary (JCIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148oSection 2(14)Section 271(1)(C)Section 45

addition - Whether for determining agricultural land is capital asset, distance from municipal limits should be reckoned as per notification dated 6.1.1994 issued under section 2(14)(iii)(b) and subsequent expansion of municipal limits without fresh notification by Central Government was irrelevant Held, yes Whether since agricultural land sold ... fromDevanahalli Municipality and within 8 kms. from Bengaluru Municipality (BBMP) when measured aerially, therefore, they fell within definition of capital assets under section 2(14)(iii) Tribunal noted that, though land was converted, assessee continued agricultural operations which was evident from fact that income derived from agricultural operations declared

Akram, Roorkee vs. DCIT, Circle, Haridwar

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 6373/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jan 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

outside the outer municipal limit of Hyderabad. The land transferred could not be considered a capital asset under the provision of section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act. From the ratio of these judgments. It is quite clear that mere notification of the area In which the assessee ... said purchases, we do not find any infirmity with the finding of the Tribunal, that the reliance placed on the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) is of no assistance to the assesses. If the lands, in question, were not purchased for the purpose of agriculture, with

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

following conditions are satisfied, the said agricultural land shall be treated as capital assets. For the sake of clarity, the relevant provisions of section 2(14)(iii) are reproduced as under:- “(iii) agricultural land” in india, not being land situate— (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction ... with the latest report/certificate dated 28-02-2019 of Municipal Board, Sardarshahar. Sir, it is clarified that our case is not covered by section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Reference is again invited to sub-clause(b) of section 2(14)(iii) “not being more than six kilometres

Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi, Bhayander vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Thane

ITA 614/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Rambilas Radhakishan Joshi, Ito, Ward 2(2), 201, Shanti Darshan, Station Road, Room No. 26, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Vs. Bhayander (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Dist. Thane-401101. Wagle Ind. Estate, Thane-400604. Pan No. Adgpj 1395 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 17/12/2024
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 48Section 68

exception The land sold was "agricultural land covered by the exception The land sold was "agricultural land covered by the exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the contained ... section 2(14)(iii) of the I.T. Act 1961, and that the Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption Id AO had taken adverse view based on erroneous assumption that the agricultural l that the agricultural land

Kalubhai Chauhan, Sanand, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Vejalpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 302/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

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

makes it clear, these vital documents are very much necessary to decide whether the sale of land will fall under the definition of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. 7. Ld. Sr. D.R. appearing for the Revenue also confirmed that the matter may be set aside to the file

Land Acquisition Office, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, (TDS), Gurgaon

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 643/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs. Dcit (Tds), Land Acquisition Officer, Huda Complex, Sector-14, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan :Rtklo0706G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Cit(Dr)

Section 194ASection 201(1)Section 201(1)(A)Section 28Section 34Section 56

section 10(37) of the Act. We agree. Agricultural land situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act do not fall within the ambit of agricultural land and thus constitute 'capital asset' under section 2(14 ... place. However, capital gains arising from transfer of agricultural land situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of section 2(14)(iii) by way of compulsory acquisition under any law is exempt from tax under section 10(37) of the Act. Accordingly, any income

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 93/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

notice, the assessee submitted that the land sold by thus, it is out of the scope of a ‘capital asset’ as defined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the information

Abbas Ali Akhil, Usa vs. ACIT-Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 92/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

notice, the assessee submitted that the land sold by thus, it is out of the scope of a ‘capital asset’ as defined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the information

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 91/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

notice, the assessee submitted that the land sold by thus, it is out of the scope of a ‘capital asset’ as defined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the information

Mir Ibrahim Ali, Usa vs. ACIT, Int-Tax-1, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 69/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha G. Hon’Bleआ.अपी.सं / Ita Nos.69 & 91/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19)

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Meghnath Chowhan, CIT-DR
Section 144CSection 144C(15)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 15Section 153(2)Section 2(14)Section 45

notice, the assessee submitted that the land sold by thus, it is out of the scope of a ‘capital asset’ as defined under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. The AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taken note of the information