← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(iii)(b)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii)(b) is PCIT, Central-3 v. Allied Perfumers (P.) Ltd. (124 Taxmann.com 358), cited in 54 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii)(b)

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.

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.

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.

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi
404 ITR 173 · 2018 · High Court
15
citing judgments

If land is recorded as agricultural land in revenue records, it is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, entitling the assessee to exemption from tax.

Mubarak Gafur Korabu v. ITO
117 Taxmann.com 828 · 2020 · ITAT
14
citing judgments

Section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with income from acquisition of property for inadequate consideration, does not apply to agricultural land purchased by an assessee, as it is not considered a capital asset under Section 2(14) of the Act.

CIT v. E. Udayakumar
284 ITR 511 · 2006 · High Court
14
citing judgments

The determination of whether land is agricultural or not depends on its status at the time of transfer, and subsequent usage or location in a commercial area is irrelevant. The purpose for which a purchaser buys the land also does not affect its classification as a capital asset at the time of sale.

CIT v. R K Kalthia Engineering & Automobiles (P) Ltd.
33 Taxmann.com 14 · 2013 · High Court
11
citing judgments

Disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 36(1)(iii) is not permissible if the Assessing Officer fails to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and funds diverted for investment or loans, especially when sufficient interest-free funds are available with the assessee.

Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shiv Chand Satnam Paul
231 ITR 663 · High Court
10
citing judgments

The intention of the assessee at the time of selling land, evidenced by applications to convert agricultural to non-agricultural status and subsequent payment of non-agricultural taxes by the buyer, indicates the land should be treated as non-agricultural for tax purposes.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)(iii)(b)

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

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1646/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

municipalities. The provision under section 2 of the Act is at page 1 of the paper book and on perusal of the section 2(14)(iii) (b) explains that in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment ... lands to commercial use was irrelevant. In the present case, as discussed above, the subjected lands are agricultural land in pursuance of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act read with Notification issued by the Central 43 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Government, fortified by the decisions

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1625/CHNY/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

municipalities. The provision under section 2 of the Act is at page 1 of the paper book and on perusal of the section 2(14)(iii) (b) explains that in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment ... lands to commercial use was irrelevant. In the present case, as discussed above, the subjected lands are agricultural land in pursuance of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act read with Notification issued by the Central 43 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Government, fortified by the decisions

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1624/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

municipalities. The provision under section 2 of the Act is at page 1 of the paper book and on perusal of the section 2(14)(iii) (b) explains that in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment ... lands to commercial use was irrelevant. In the present case, as discussed above, the subjected lands are agricultural land in pursuance of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act read with Notification issued by the Central 43 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Government, fortified by the decisions

Samarjit Singh Chabra, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 14(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1623/CHNY/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1623, 1624, 1625 & 1646/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09 & W.T.A. Nos. 43 & 44/Chny/2018 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09 Shri Samarijit Singh Chabra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer/ No. K-10, Sangath Apartments, Wealth Tax Officer, Mgr Nagar, Velachery, Non Corporate Ward – 14(1), Chennai 600 042. Chennai. [Pan: Bfops1703Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: These Four Income Tax Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Different Orders All Dated 26.02.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 14, Chennai For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2008-09. 2. Since, Issues Raised In All The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of The Both The Parties, We Proceed

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 142(1)

municipalities. The provision under section 2 of the Act is at page 1 of the paper book and on perusal of the section 2(14)(iii) (b) explains that in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment ... lands to commercial use was irrelevant. In the present case, as discussed above, the subjected lands are agricultural land in pursuance of section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act read with Notification issued by the Central 43 I.T.A. Nos.1623-1625 & 1646 & WTA 43-44/Chny/18 Government, fortified by the decisions