← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(iii)(a)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(iii)(a)62 judgments

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. KRUPESH JAYANTILAL PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 921/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.921/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Asst.Year 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

Municipal limits in all direction whereas land in question is outside the 5 KM radious of Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation and as per Section 2(14)(iii)(a) capital asset means property of any kind hold by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession and agricultural land

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

ITA 1666/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

LALCHAND NARAYAN BHAKT,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 2, JALNA

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

ITA 93/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri A D Kulkarni
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(47)(v)

kilometers from the end of the Municipal limits of Jalna city and therefore is a capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. Since the assessee did not furnish his return of income for the year under consideration as required

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 251/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That since agricultural land of the appellant falls under the definition of ‘Agricultural Land’ under section 2(14)(iii)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hence the compensation to arisen from the compulsory acquisition such land is exempt from income-tax under ... said land to any one of their members. Accordingly, said land was transferred to Mrs. Usha Yadav W/o Sri Babu Lal Yadav. d. Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act is reproduced for ready reference: “Capital asset means- agricultural land in India, not being land situate - in any area

USHA YADAV,LUCKNOW vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER RANGE 6(2), LUCKNOW

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

ITA 249/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow09 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)
Section 10(37)Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That since agricultural land of the appellant falls under the definition of ‘Agricultural Land’ under section 2(14)(iii)(a) of Income Tax Act, 1961, hence the compensation to arisen from the compulsory acquisition such land is exempt from income-tax under ... said land to any one of their members. Accordingly, said land was transferred to Mrs. Usha Yadav W/o Sri Babu Lal Yadav. d. Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act is reproduced for ready reference: “Capital asset means- agricultural land in India, not being land situate - in any area

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

municipal 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 ... However, to 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

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

main claim of assessee was that the land\nsold by him was an 'agricultural land' not situated within the\nprescribed area/distance in section 2(14)(iii)(a)/(b) and hence\nexcluded from the definition of 'capital asset' in terms of section\n2(14)(iii), therefore the resultant capital gain ... However, the AO 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

BHADRABALA DHIMANTRAI JOSHI,SURAT vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 126/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.126/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Bhadrabala Dhimantrai Joshi Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 6Th Shree Nagar Society, Ghod Income-Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Vs. Dod Road, Surat-395 001 Anavil Business Centre, Adajan, Surat-395 007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aazpj 4561 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Appellant By Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bijayananda Pruseth, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, 'The Act’) Dated 20.01.2025 By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Nfac), Delhi /Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [In Short, The ‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short, ‘Ao’) U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 03.12.2019. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee For The Appeal Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs.1,21,92,898/- On Account Of Alleged Disallowing Immunity Claimed U/S.2(14) Of Income-Tax Act, 1961 By Treating Again As Business Income, Which Ground Has Never Been Conveyed And/Or Initiated To Respond & Revealed Through Assessment Order Only. As No Opportunity Is Afforded Either Through Any Notice And/Or More

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(8)

assessee, it was concluded by the AO that the assessee not only failed to satisfy the conditions laid down in sub-section 2(14)(iii) of the Act but also transferred properties which fell in the category of stock-in-trade and not capital asset. Therefore, the profit on such ... whose population was more than 10,000. Therefore, the land in question did not fulfil the condition as mentioned in clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act for being treated as agricultural land and exempted from ITA No.126/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Bhadrabala D Joshi capital asset

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 ... nwithin municipal limits of Mohali - On appeal, assessee pleaded an\naltenate ground that land was not a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) -\nCommisssioner (Appeals) however, upheld AO's decision - It was noted\nthat assessee had submitted necessary documentation issued by\nCompetent authorities that agriculture land was not situated

ACIT, CC 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAKESHKUMAR JAYANTILAL PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 899/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Vartik Choksi, AR
Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

addition of Rs.4,89,83,438/- made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the AO has thoroughly verified the provisions of section 2(14) (iii) of the Act. 2) In the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... sold was not a capital asset but rather it was “agricultural land” which was excluded from the definition of a capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The assessee submitted that Adalaj is not governed by a municipality or municipal corporation, thereby excluding the land from clause

VIDYA BHUSHAN SHUKLA,BALODA BAZAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 315/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.315/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vidya Bhushan Shukla Near Gandhi Chowk, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara (C.G.)-493 332 Pan: Ajgps4391F ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Khandelwal &For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

THOMAS CHERIAN,THANE vs. DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN, DCIT CIRCLE INTL. TXN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

property sold was agricultural property situated in rural area and, therefore, it cannot be termed as “capital asset” within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant also objected to adoption of the value for stamp duty purposes

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)

municipal limits or a 15 Pinki Fresh Foods Limited. cantonment board having a population of more than ten thousand, as 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

KRISHNA KISHORE REDDY MANYAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4) , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed\nfor statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 58/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2008-09
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 548Section 54BSection 54F

notification dated 16.04.2007 was included within\nGHMC, therefore, the same fell within the meaning of “capital\nasset” as per the express provisions of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the\nAct. Also, the A.O. observed, that now when the agricultural land\nsituated at Village: Manchirevula on 07.09.2007 was situated\nwithin ... land sold by the assessee at the\ntime of sale was an “urban land” and hence, a “capital asset”\nwithin the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act, therefore, the\ngain arising on the sale of the same was exigible to tax.\nAccordingly, the A.O. based

KUSUM YADAV,INDORE vs. ITO 1(2), INDORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 518/IND/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 263Section 54BSection 68

alleged short term capital\ngain. That the land being rural agricultural land was not a'\ncapital asset as per provision of Section 2(14)(iii). The addition\nmade, therefore may very kindly be deleted.\n4\nThat the learned CIT(A] erred in maintaining addition\nRs.20,00,000/- made ... nthe Act after verifying the details. The only dispute here is whether the lands\ninvolved were a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the\nAct or otherwise.\n9. 2. The assessment order, the averments made by the appellant in this\nregard and the material available

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

VINAYA SHARMA,KOTA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 628/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, CIT (V.H)
Section 10Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 2(14)Section 234

Taxman 381 (Bombay) (DPB 1-26),\nwherein it was held as under:\n“Section 45, read with section 2(1) and section 2(14) (iii) [as it stood after 1-4-\n1970], of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Capital gains - Chargeability Whether\nparliament has legislative competence to levy capital gains ... within the\njurisdiction of DMC is over 10,000. Obviously, such a situation could not be said to\nhave been provided for in section 2(14)(iii)(a), otherwise the Parliament would\nhave enacted some guideline for making appropriate choice for including or not\nincluding in the definition of 'capital

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAJA BABU NIMMATURI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 701/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority notified by the Govt. of A.P vide GO No.570 dated 25.08.2018 and hence, as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), the land is a capital asset and the profit derived from sale of land is assessable for capital gain. Therefore, rejected the explanation ... after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts observed that as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), if any land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board and which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. RAMESH BABU NIMMATOORI, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 700/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority notified by the Govt. of A.P vide GO No.570 dated 25.08.2018 and hence, as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), the land is a capital asset and the profit derived from sale of land is assessable for capital gain. Therefore, rejected the explanation ... after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts observed that as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), if any land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board and which

RAJA BABU NIMMATOORI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 621/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.A N D Shri K. Narasimha Charis.No Ita Nos. Appellant Respondent A.Y 591/Hyd/2022 Shri Ramesh Babu 1 Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 2 619/Hyd/2022 Nimmatoori Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1659G 3 700/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle 2(4) Shri Ramesh Babu 2018-19 Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1659G 4 311/Hyd/2022 Raja Babu Nimmatoori 2013-14 589/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 5 2016-17 Pan:Acspn1662R 2(4) Hyderabad 6 590/Hyd/2022 2017-18 7 621/Hyd/2022 2018-19 8 701/Hyd/2022 Acit, Central Circle Raja Babu 2018-19 2(4) Hyderabad Nimmatoori Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1662R 9 337/Hyd/2022 Yashoda Nimmatoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 593/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 10 2017-18 618/Hyd/2022 Pan:Acspn1657J 11 2018-19 332/Hyd/2022 12 Anudeep Nimmattoori Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 13 475/Hyd/2022 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad 2017-18 476/Hyd/2022 Pan:Ahbpn2081Q 14 2018-19 15 592/Hyd/2022 Sulochana Acit, Central Circle 2017-18 Nimmattoori 2(4) Hyderabad 16 620/Hyd/2022 2018-19 Pan:Acspn1664K 594/Hyd/2022 Manjusha Nimmatoori 17 Acit, Central Circle 2018-19 Hyderabad 2(4) Hyderabad Pan:Acspn1666M िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 14/08/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(x)Section 57

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority notified by the Govt. of A.P vide GO No.570 dated 25.08.2018 and hence, as per the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), the land is a capital asset and the profit derived from sale of land is assessable for capital gain. Therefore, rejected the explanation ... after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taken note of relevant facts observed that as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a), if any land situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a Municipality or a Cantonment Board and which

Showing 1–20 of 62 · Page 1 of 4