← 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)

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Lakshmi Narayana Turairao, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. Anjuna Sehgal (supra) that the expression "from the local limits of any municipality" used in section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income-tax Act denotes "any municipality or municipality of the District in which the land is situated". Further, capital gains

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi

ITA 824/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

filed under Section 139 of the Act to the tune of Rs.144,55,000/-. The assessee claimed the said receipts as exempt under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer

Kamlesh Kumar Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 553/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 68

filed under Section 139 of the Act to the tune of Rs.144,55,000/-. The assessee claimed the said receipts as exempt under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued. The case of the assessee before the Assessing Officer

Shri Kishan, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3030/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

been handed over to the M/s Bestech India Pvt Ltd. The land in question comes under the definition of the agricultural land u/s section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. He has further submitted that the appellants took the consideration, from the M/s. Bestech India Pvt which fell ... delete the addition of Rs. 75,01,926/- made in the hands of the assessee." 15. The agricultural land in India defines under section 2(14) (iii)of the Act Agricultural land in India, not being land situated - (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction

Manoj Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3029/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Kishan S/O Late Jagmal Vs Income Tax Officer Singh, H. No.112, Near Shiv Ward- 4 (2) Mandir, Village & P.O. Gurgaon Nakhrola, Tehsil, Manesar Distt. Gurgaon – 122001 Pan No. Aaacp0165G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer S/O Late Sh. Jagdish Chander Ward-2 (4) Village P & O. Nakhrola Gurgaon Tehsil Manesar Gurgaon-122001 Pan No. Atvpm1063B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 548Section 54B

been handed over to the M/s Bestech India Pvt Ltd. The land in question comes under the definition of the agricultural land u/s section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. He has further submitted that the appellants took the consideration, from the M/s. Bestech India Pvt which fell ... delete the addition of Rs. 75,01,926/- made in the hands of the assessee." 15. The agricultural land in India defines under section 2(14) (iii)of the Act Agricultural land in India, not being land situated - (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction

Arvindsinh Ishvarsinh Vaghela, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Mehsana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 420/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 248(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 50CSection 50C(2)Section 548

ITA No.420/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Ashish Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashish Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), R-11/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Agipg3854E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Order : 13.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad Dated 25.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Because The Order Of Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law As Well As Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Because Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.13230858/- By Wrongly Observing That Land Situated At Village Masuri Pargana Dasna Is Within The Municipal Limits Of Ghaziabad Though The Agricultural Land Is Undisputedly Beyond

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 2(14)

municipal limits as on 06.01.1994, when the notification of distance from respective municipal limits, was passed, should be considered with reference to section 2(14)(iii). 5.1.1 Examination of facts reveal that the appellant sold a joint property leading to assessment of long term capital gain ... found to be capital asset in accordance with the municipal limits of Ghaziabad municipality during FY 2012-13 within the provisions of section 2(14)(iii). Thus, the contention of the appellant, that the sale of above said land does not attract capital gain is not accepted. Accordingly, this ground

Narayan, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 268/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Narayan Vs. Ito House No.431/9, Balaji Ward- 3 (1) Hanuman Mandir, Sector- Gurgaon 11, Shivaji Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122001 Pan No.Aqppn9087M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Yogesh Yadav, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Anshul, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 16/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2024 Order Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm:

Section 147Section 148Section 2

expansion of municipal limits would still be regarded as agricultural land not falling in definition of capitals asset in term of section 2(14) (iii)(b). (A.Y. 2008-09) Copy of order is enclosed.” 7. The present appeal is to be decided solely on one point that the agricultural land ... Gurgaon. 9. The assessee has sold the agricultural land which has not come to the preview of the capital asset in term of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Assessment Order made by the AO regarding the income of assessee was not sustainable. 10. From the above discussion

Bojjala Venkata Sudhir Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 342/HYD/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR
Section 2(14)(iii)

Sehgal (ITA No. 276 of 2004, dated 01/03/2011), reached a conclusion that the lands in question constitute capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act and the learned Assessing Officer was right in computing the Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of such ... fact failed to produce any evidence to show that the land in question in fact situated in any area prescribed under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. As a matter of fact, this factual aspect was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Mirza Nader Baig (supra

Vipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No. 2

ITA 3726/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalvipul Mahasukhlal Gopani, A-3003, One Avighna Park, Mahadev Palav Marg, Lower Parel East, Mumbai – 400 012 Pan: Aaapg8761A ....... Appellant Vs. Acit Circle 6(1)(1), Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Jayshree Menon, Ld. DR
Section 10Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that - i. The appellant fulfilled all the criteria's for claim of agricultural land as not capital asset as per section provision of section 2(14) (iii) ii. The certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat of Umbroli clearly specified that the said agricultural land at Umbroli is beyond 8 kilometres ... said land sold on 5.12.2013 was not within the Municipal limits. V. The CBDT circular No 17/2015 dated 06.10.2015 in relation to section 2(14) (iii) (b) that the distance is to be measured aerially. 3. The Learned CIT (A)-NFAC erred in confirming the sale of agricultural land under

ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(1), Cochin vs. Sri. Babu Chandrathil George, Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed on the foregoing terms

ITA 64/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalthe Income Tax Officer Babu Chandrathil George Non Corporate Ward 1(1) 32/1173 Chandrathil House Kochi Vs. Civle Line Road, Palarivattom Kochi 682025 [Pan: Agzpg7680D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Ms. Divya Ravindran, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial

Balwinder Singh Bajwa, Sangrur vs. ITO, Ward, Sunam

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/CHANDI/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Dev Ahuja, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

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

Land sold by the Assessee was not a capital Asset and was purely in the nature of Rural Agriculture Land as per Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It was submitted that as per the definition of agriculture land, it is clear that any Land which ... certificates of the Village Administrative Officer, Deputy Surveyor, Ambattur Taluk and General Manager, Metropolitan Transport Corporation (Chennai) Ltd's, for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, certificates of the Revenue Authorities and Public Transport Corporation Ltd., on the measurement of distance

Mr.P.C.Jose, Cochin vs. DCIT, Cochin

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed, and the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/COCH/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Apr 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasp.C. Jose Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Brothers Agencies Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Jews Street Vs. Kochi Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Deputy Commissioner Of P.C. Jose Income Tax, Circle-2(1) Prop. Brothers Agencies Kochi Vs. Jews Street Ernakulam 682031 [Pan: Abbpj8250F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: ----- None -----For Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Sh. Avtar Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-2(5), Chandigarh

ITA 389/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.S.Kahlon, CIT-DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(ii)Section 54B

that so, the transfer of the land could not be held liable for capital gains tax as per the amended provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income Tax Act. For his assertion regarding village Chhat having been under Gram Panchayat and it having no Municipal Committee ... population of Zirakpur was around 2.50 lakh, as there was a considerable expansion of the city and its population; that the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act have been amended w.e.f. 01.04.2014; that therefore, the assessee's plea that the land is outside the municipal

ITO, International Taxation Ward1(2), Chennai vs. Rajamanickam Arulselvan, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 479/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G & Shri Manomohan Dasआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.479/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 & C.O. No. 44/Chny/2023 [In I.T.A. No. 479/Chny/2023] The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Rajamanickam Arulselvan, 65, Defence Officer Colony, 2Nd International Taxation Ward 1(2), Bsnl Building Tower-1, 4Th Floor, Avenue, 6Th Cross Street, Guindy, Greams Road, Thousand Light, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Chennai 600 006. Chennai 600 032. [Pan:Aappa2346C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit Assessee By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.04.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per Manjunatha, G.: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai, Dated 22.02.2023 Passed In Ita No. 10039/Cit(A)-16/2012-2013 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds: 1. That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Erroneous On The Facts, The Merits Of The Case & Provisions Of Law As Well & Hence Unsustainable. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Appreciate That When The Assessee Had Applied For Conversion Of The Vacant Land Into A Plotted

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 45(3)

assessee and held that the assets transferred to the partnership firm as capital contribution do not qualify as agricultural land within the meaning section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus, the transfer attracts the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act. As such, the Assessing Officer ... provisions rightly held that the land transferred to the partnership firm as capital contribution do not qualify as agricultural land within the meaning section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus, the transfer attracts the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act and without appreciating the same

Goldgreen Land Holdings LLP( Formerly Gold Green Holdings Private Limited), Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 473/HYD/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 473/Hyd/2023 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Goldgreen Land Holdings Llp Vs. Income Tax Officer, (Formerly Gold Green Holdings Ward-2(1), Private Limited), Hyderabad Shankarpally Mandal, Mirzaguda [Pan No. Aadcg2864N] अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent धििााररती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा / Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, Dr सुिवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/03/2024 घोर्णा की तारीख/Pronouncement On: 22/03/2024 आदेश / Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, J.M: Aggrieved By The Order Dated 07/08/2023 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), In The Case Of Goldgreen Land Holdings Private Limited (“The Assessee”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Assessee Preferred This Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar Pal Tated, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 48Section 50C

from the Municipal limit same is not acceptable as the Assessing Officer has annexed the Google Map of the land sold. As per Section 2(14)(iii), amendment has been brought in the definition of agricultural land as capital asset retrospectively from 1.4.1970. Hence the Assessing Officer is correct

Income Tax Officer, Koramangala Bangalore vs. Nadakrishna Thimmaiah, Bangalore

ITA 653/BANG/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

used for agricultural activities. Thus, the income arising on sale of agricultural lands was claimed as exempt by the Assessee in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The ld. AO proceeded to treat the income from sale of agricultural lands as 'adventure in the nature of trade ... relevant: a) The land does not fall within 8 kms from the local limits of any Municipal or Cantonment Board as referred in section 2(14)(iii)(a). It also does not fall within the notified area as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b). b) The land

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 130/BANG/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Bharath R., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

used for agricultural activities. Thus, the income arising on sale of agricultural lands was claimed as exempt by the Assessee in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The ld. AO proceeded to treat the income from sale of agricultural lands as 'adventure in the nature of trade ... relevant: a) The land does not fall within 8 kms from the local limits of any Municipal or Cantonment Board as referred in section 2(14)(iii)(a). It also does not fall within the notified area as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b). b) The land

Narendra Kantilal Banthia, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 1319/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: None
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 55(2)(b)

Tribunal are that the lands sold were agricultural lands and therefore, not liable to any capital gain as per exceptions contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. He, therefore, prayed that addition made by the AO requires to be deleted. 3. When the appeal was called on, none