← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(iii)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)(b)74 judgments

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

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

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD, 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

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 when found

DHANANJAY ESTATE AND REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or cantonment committee and which has a population not less than 10,000. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act specified the land situated within aerial distance of 2KM/6KM/8KM limits from any municipality (cantonment) with population ... qualify as an agricultural land, the land must meet specific criteria, including its distance from the municipal areas, as stipulated under Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. As per the said provision (as it stood prior to its amendment i.e. at the time

MANJEET KAUR KAMBOJ,YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA vs. ITO WARD-2, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA, YAMUNA NAGAR HARYANA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ, च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI

SMT. PUSHPA AGRAWAL,INDORE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), INDORE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPPOSITE WHITE CHURCH, RESIDENCY AREA, INDORE

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

also claimed before AO that the lands sold by her were not situated within the prescribed distance of 8 kilometers as per section 2(14)(iii)(b) and therefore the lands were excluded from the definition of 'capital asset' and the resultant capital gain was not taxable. However ... mentioned relevant provision of law in assessment-order but the Ld. AR submitted that the AO meant to refer section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act] and therefore the resultant capital gain was taxable. Accordingly, the AO made addition\nof taxable gain at Rs.67,56,545/- [Rs.2

VISHAL GIFT CENTRE - LLP,INDORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, INDORE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 347/IND/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

rejected both\nclaims of assessee by assigning reasons that (i) the land was situated\nwithin 8 kms' prescribed distance of section 2(14)(iii)(b), and (ii) the\nassessee sold land to a builder after obtaining diversion for non-\nagricultural use, therefore the land was not 'agricultural'. Ultimately,\nthe ... cantonment board',\ntherefore section 2(14)(iii)(a) is not applicable. Now what remains is to\nexamine from the angle of section 2(14)(iii)(b). There are three limbs in\nsection 2(14)(iii)(b), viz. (I), (II) and (III). The highest distance is prescribed in\nlimb (III) which

BHAVANABEN PRAVINCHANDRABHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(6), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

ITA 71/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.71/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) Bhavnaben Pravinchandrabhai Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ Patel Ward-1(3)(6), Surat, 303, Vs. 16D/183/6 Shiv Shaki Bhavan, Income Tax Office, Anavil Opp. Rupli Chinema, Ram Business Centre, Adajan, Surat- Nagar, Rander Road, Surat-395 395 007 005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bgfpp 0968 N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

rural agricultural land” and is, therefore, excluded from the definition of “capital asset” under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) states that agricultural land situated within 8 km from municipal limits is a capital asset. In the instant case, the assessee filed a certificate

HOSHIYARI,REWARI vs. ITO , WARD-1, REWARI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 5864/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Hoshiyari C/O Anu Jain & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Company, 272 R, First Floor, Ward-1, Near Palika Complex, Model Rewari. Town, Rewari (Haryana) Pin: 123 401 Pan :Bmdpd2079Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54

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 ... 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 Whereas a draft notification was published by the Central Government

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

lower appellate discussion under challenge. 9. It is in this factual backdrop that we notice from a perusal of section 2(14)(iii)(b) as amended vide the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 2014 that the above aerial distance measurement does not carry any retrospective effect since the assessment year herein

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

lower appellate discussion under challenge. 9. It is in this factual backdrop that we notice from a perusal of section 2(14)(iii)(b) as amended vide the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 2014 that the above aerial distance measurement does not carry any retrospective effect since the assessment year herein

NEETU YADAV,GURGAON, HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE, GURGAON

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

lower appellate discussion under challenge. 9. It is in this factual backdrop that we notice from a perusal of section 2(14)(iii)(b) as amended vide the Finance Act, 2013 w.e.f. 2014 that the above aerial distance measurement does not carry any retrospective effect since the assessment year herein

NATESAN EKAMBARAM,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), CHENNAI

In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue stands allowed

ITA 2873/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:2873/Chny/2024 धनिाारणिर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Natesan Ekambaram, Dcit, 1/115, Bajanai Kovil Vs. Central Circle -1(2), Street, Chennai. Perumbakkam, Medavakkam Post, Chennai – 601 302 [Pan:Ackpe-6757-C] (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) (अपीलाथी/Appellant) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, Ca. प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.Cit.

For Appellant: Mr.K.Vishwa Padmanabhan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.C.Sivakumar , Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,‘ए’न्यायपीठ,चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्रीएसएसधिश्वनेत्ररधि, न्याधयकसदस्यएिंश्रीएस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखासदस्यकेसमक्ष BEFORE SHRI

SHIVA CORPORATION (INDIA) LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1219/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)

definition of \"agricultural land\"\nas per clause (i) of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act and submitted\nthat as per section 2(14)(iii)(b)(i) the distance should be less than 2 km\nfrom the municipal limits having population upto 1 lakh. The appellant\nhas also enclosed ... section 2(14)(iii)(a) - Whether\nfurther, given that population of Village was 907 as per latest\ncensus, even as per section 2(14)(iii)(b), one of essential conditions\nof population exceeding threshold was not satisfied and subject\nagriculture land would stand excluded and could not be classified

NARESH CHANDER WASAN (INDV),GURGAON vs. ITO, WRDS 3(1), GURGAON

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Naresh Chander Wasan (Indiv.), Vs Ito, Haryana Timber Stores, Ward-3(1), Basai Road, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan: Aabpw1804H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)

sale deed is available on record which although mention the sale is outside the Municipal Corporation area, but, for the purpose of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, it is not established to be falling in the 3 exception. So, the grounds raised have no substance. The appeal

SUDARSANAM,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 22(6), TAMBARAM

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 707/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.:707/Chny/2025 धनि्धरणवरध/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudarsanam, The Income-Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 22(6), 68/52. Sithivinayagar Koil St., Vs. Tambaram. Tambaram Sanatorium, Chennai-600 047. [Pan:Btwps-8389-E] (अपील्थ्/Appellant) (प्थ्/Respondent) अपील्थ्कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunakaran, Advocate प्थ्कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit. सुनव््कीत्रीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 घोरण्कीत्रीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

capital asset u/s.2(14) of the Act. On appeal the same has been confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 16. We note that Section 2(14)(iii)(b) excludes agricultural land situated in an area beyond 8 km from a municipality and having population of less than

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,JAIPUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary
Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

Murlipura in Sanganer tehsil of Jaipur The CBDT vide its notification no 9447 dated 6th January, 1994 for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 has notified the municipality of Jaipur as the areas up to distance of 8 Kms from municipal limits ... Page No. of Paper Book) The CBDT vide its notification no. 9447 dated 6th January, 1994 for the purpose of Section 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has notified the municipality of Jaipur as the areas up to distance of 8 Kms from municipal limits

BALBIR SINGH SAINI,GURGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), GURGAON

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

ITA 2170/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(iiib)

same is exempt from capital again. Agricultural land of assessee is not falling within the definition of capital asset in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the IT Act. At the time of making assessment in the show cause notice the Ld A.O. has wrongly been taken stand ... distance will be calculated from outer limit of municipality. Therefore, documents furnished by you are not acceptable. Above mentioned amendment in section 2(14)(iii)(b) is substituted by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Same is applicable from AY: 2014-15. So the question of department is irrelevant

PINKI FRESH FOODS LIMITED,CHITTOOR vs. ITO., WARD-1, CHITTOOR

ITA 1151/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri K. Sai Prasad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 112Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 2(14)

envisaged in Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act; nor is situated within the notified area limits as contemplated in Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act, therefore, the same is not a “Capital Asset”. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that both the authorities

Showing 1–20 of 74 · Page 1 of 4