← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(ii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(ii)24 judgments

INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1/JAO, NAGERCOIL vs. ARULANANDHAM BER SYRIL ANTOW, NAGERCOIL

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2079/CHNY/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N., C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. M.Ramesh Kumar, F.C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 2Section 2(14)Section 40

agricultural land and it was beyond 8 k.m., from notified cities, therefore, it should not be considered as a capital asset under section 2(14)(ii) and gain arose on its sale was exempt Assessee had also produced certificate from Village Administrative Officer (VAO), stating that said land was primarily

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

urban land has been held as a capital asset if it is situated within the municipal limits as defined in section 2(14)(ii)(a ) and (b) of the Act. In other words, every land situated in the municipal limits (as defined above) is covered under the definition

SEJAL FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

ITA Nos.403, 404, 405 & 406/Ahd/2022 A.Y: 2012-13 for all the Appeals Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX

SHANTI FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 405/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

ITA Nos.403, 404, 405 & 406/Ahd/2022 A.Y: 2012-13 for all the Appeals Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX

SUDAMA FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

ITA Nos.403, 404, 405 & 406/Ahd/2022 A.Y: 2012-13 for all the Appeals Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX

SHALIMAR FARMS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four Appels are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

ITA Nos.403, 404, 405 & 406/Ahd/2022 A.Y: 2012-13 for all the Appeals Page 1 of 10 IN THE INCOME TAX

MUKESH KUMAR JAJORIYA,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WD 2(3), JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

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

ITA 51/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 54B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

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

sale consideration of agricultural land. The AO expressed the view that the land sold was a capital asset as per the provisions of Section 2(14)(ii)(a) of the Income Tax Act and ITA 389/CHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 4 that the Notification No. 9447 of dated 06.01.1994 was not applicable

GOPALBHAI BACHUBHAI SENJALIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 3(2) , KALYAN

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

ITA 349/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blegopalbhai Bachubhai Senjalia V. Ito, Ward 3(2) 102, Tulsi Dhara, Gokul Nagar 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Khadak Pada, Kalyan (W) Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Thane- 421301 Thane- 421301 Pan: Actps3399H (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(ii)Section 50CSection 50C(2)

Dist. Rajkot, Gujarat, not appreciating that the land sold was agricultural land and therefore not a capital asset as per exception contained in section 2(14)(ii) of the IT Act 1961 and accordingly the surplus arising on sale of such land was not liable

ACIT CIRCLE-29(1), NEW DELHI vs. SANJEEV BHALERAO, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2087/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 2087/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Acit, Vs Sanjeev Bhalerao, Circle-29(1), B-2/25, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110029 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aetpb0760M Assessee By : Sh. Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR
Section 10Section 2(14)(ii)Section 45Section 54F

Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of sale of paintings being not in the nature of capital asset. As per provisions of Section 2(14)(ii)(d), the paintings were excluded from the definition of “personal effects” w.e.f. 01.04.2008. Hence, paintings are capital asset and transfer of the same

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1767/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SMT POOJA SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1766/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SHRI GAURAV SEKHARI,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 1765/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5378/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SHRI BHUPINDER KUMAR SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5377/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

M/S. KEERTHI INTERNATIONAL PRODUCTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5375/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

M/S. NOVA INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5364/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SMT. SHOBHA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5362/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SMT. PUJA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5361/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

SMT. PUJA SEKHRI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 5360/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

holding that agricultural land sold by assessee is a capital asset and denied exemption so claimed ITA Nos.5312/Del/2014 & Others by assessee - appellant under section 2(14)(ii) of the Act. It is further, submitted that since all the 17 captioned appeals involve identical issues, as such, submissions are here being

Showing 1–20 of 24 · Page 1 of 2