“Section 2(14)(iii)(a)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii)(a) 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)(a)

CWT v. Officer-in-Charge (Court of Wards), Paigha

105 ITR 133 · 1976 · Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)(a)

George Stanley, Thiruvalla vs. DCIT, International Taxation, Circle, Trivandrum, Thiruvananthapuram

ITA 587/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am &Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Ms.Telma Raju, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, AM &Shri Manomohan Das, JM ITA No.587/Coch/2022

DCIT, Cochin vs. Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph George), Cochin

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 525/COCH/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Oct 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasdy. Cit, Circle 2(1), Range – 2 M.J. George C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road, Mukkadayil House Kochi 682018 Vs. Krishnaswamy Cross Road Ernakulam, Kochi - 682035 [Pan: Adgpg6991D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Assessee By: Sri R. Lokanathan, Ca Date Of Hearing: 17.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.10.2023 Order Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Agitating The Allowance Of The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 31.12.2008 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2006-07, By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kochi [Cit(A)] Vide His Order Dated 31.03.2011. 2. The Facts Of The Case In Brief Are That The Assessee, An Individual, Who Had Returned His Income For The Year At Rs.63,420/- (From Business & Other Sources), Was Found To Have A Credit Of Rs.899.10 Lakhs In His Bank Account On 14.02.2006. The Same Was Explained In The Assessment Proceedings As Sale Proceeds Of 5.21 Acres Of Land At Kakkanad Village, Falling Under Thrikkakara Panchayat, Sold For Rs.977.10 Lakhs Vide Registered Sale Deed Dated 13.02.2006. The Sale Was In Pursuance Of An Agreement To Sell Dated 09.01.2006, Receiving Rs.78 Lakhs As Advance. The Said Land

For Appellant: Sri R. Lokanathan, CAFor Respondent: Sri Sajit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)

from different parties at a total cost of Rs.2.28 lakhs. Further, the land being agricultural, i.e., not a ‘capital asset’ in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, which reads as under, no income by way of capital gain arose on it’s transfer, and which explained ... which only is relevant inasmuch as, as afore-stated, the subject land does not fall under either clause (a) or clause (b) of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the opening part of which continues as such. The assessee’s argument – and which explains our second reason

Ghanshyam Shankarrao Ashtankar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Nagpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 54/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

For Appellant: Ghanshyam ShankarraoFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Agrawal

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR [THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND

Allied Photographics India Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 1083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shir Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanm/S Alliedphotographics Vs. Pr.Cit-1, India Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Room No.330, Kasturi Buildings, 3Rd Floor, Jamshedji Tata Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020. Mumbai-400020. Pan/Gir No. : Aabca2068A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nitish Gandhi.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Smiti Samant. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit)-1, Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Mr.Nitish Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Smiti Samant. DR

Section 10Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 263

Kanpur Nagar Nigam (Kanpur Municipal Corporation). As the said land is not exempt from the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) (a) & (b) of the IT Act the assessee should have offered the income as long term capital gains in his Return of Income. Hence ... observations of the Pr. CIT are not correct that, the agricultural land is situated within the limits of municipality and the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a)&(b) of the Act are attracted. Further the Pr.CIT has relied on the Google map, which was not provided and also overlooked

Baiju Roy, Patna vs. ITO, Ward-4(2), Patna

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

ITA 13/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(37)Section 133(6)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45(5)Section 54BSection 54F

letter No.2074 dated 05.12.2018 that the land in question was agricultural land and the same was situated within 3 K.M. of Municipal council. Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and (b) says as follows : "(iii) agricultural land in India not being, land situate - (a) In any area, which is comprised within

Income Tax Officer Ward-2 (1), Jammu vs. Shri Mohd Aslam Baggar, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 104/ASR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Joginder Singh, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hitendra Bhauraoji Ninawe, CIT DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 45(5)

Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer discussed relevant provisions of the Act before making additions to the returned income. He firstly discussed section 2(14)(iii) and held that since land under consideration falls within the municipal limits, therefore, the same cannot be regarded as agricultural for the purposes ... this clause, the expression "compensation or consideration" includes the compensation or consideration enhanced or further enhanced by any court, Tribunal or other authority;" Section 2(14)(iii), which deals with agricultural land not being capital asset, reads as under: [(iii) agriculture land agricultural land— in India, not being land situate

Smt. Purnima Das, Bhubaneswar vs. Pr. CIT-1, Bhubaneswar

ITA 95/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Purnima Das, C/O. Vs. Pr. Cit, Bhubaneswar-1. Biswajit Das, At-9, Budha Nagar, Budheswari, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aazpd0112 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K.Mishra, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/02/2023 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Pr.Cit Passed U./S.263 Of The Act, Dated 12.3.2022 In Appeal No. Itba/Rev/F/Reev5/2021-22/10540634159(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee Assisted By Ms.Sugyanee Kuanr & Ms. Simran Samal, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar & Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue Assisted By Shri Dharmashoka Panda, Intern From Birla School Of Law (Bgu), Bhubaneswar. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual, Who Is A Professor Of Mathematics At P.N.College, Khurda. The Assessee Had Filed Her Return Of Income For The Relevant Assessment Year On 5.8.2017

For Appellant: Shri P.K.Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271D

deed and the sale deed in respect of the alleged agricultural land showed the land as vacate land. It was further submitted that Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act simply says agricultural land which are not within the specified distance from the municipalities or such municipalities whose population under ... from Dhenkanal Municipality (page-9 of the paper book submitted by the appellant). Except for legal jargon in respect of section 2(14)(iii), the appellant had not submitted any proof/corroborative evidences in support of her claim of carrying out agricultural operations before the A.O. Similarly in respect of deduction

Sri K R Udaya Kumar, Mysore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 525/BANG/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Dec 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234A

agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within ... subject land is not only located within the distance of 8 kms from the local limits, which is covered by Clause (a) to section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, but also requires the fulfilment of the condition that the Central Government has issued a notification under this Clause

Sri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(3)(5), Bangalore

Accordingly, this ground of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Kamanahalli Pilla Reddy Nagesh, Kamanahalli Village, Kagur The Income Tax Post, Officer, Sarjapura Road, Ward – 4 [3] [5], Anekal Taluk, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore – 562 125. Pan: Adfpn8365H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Guruswamy, Itp : Shri V.S. Chakrapani, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 01-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-06-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 28.03.2019 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-9, Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Cit[A] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Assessment Order Passed U/S. 143[3] Of The Act Despite The Fact That No Valid Notice U/S.143[2] Of The Act Was Served

For Appellant: Shri Guruswamy, ITP

Section 10(1)Section 143Section 2(14)Section 234Section 292BSection 54B

within limits of BMRDA, that itself cannot be treated as the land is situated within the municipality or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. For this purpose, he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Page ... land is situated within the limit of municipality and moreover, BMRDA is not a municipal or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. This proposition is verified by the order of the Tribunal in the case of M.R. Pattabhiram (HUF) Vs. ACWT

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1036/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

gains tax 17. Without prejudice to the above, the Appellant submits that the asset transferred is an agriculture land within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Appellant submits that although the lands were converted, agricultural activities were carried on by the Appellant till the date ... Nos.1035 & 1036/Bang/2019 Page 23 of 78 18. Without prejudice, for the agricultural land to fall out of the purview of capital asset under section 2(14)(iii), the land should be situated beyond 8 kms from the local limits any municipality or cantonment board. This fact is acknowledged

Shri M. Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1035/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153A

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy, by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 755/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

submitted that the agricultural lands are located 8 kms beyond the limits of the municipal authority in accordance with the requirement of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and hence are excluded from the definition of ‘capital asset’. 5. Further, based on the documents found during the search ... agricultural land. b. It is not falling within 8 kms from the local limits of any Municipal or Cantonment Board as referred in section 2(14)(iii)(a) and also not falling within the notified area as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b). c. The land is actually

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 754/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K>Leelavathy by L/R Shri.M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 753/BANG/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

Late Smt.K.Leelavathy by L/R Shri M.Thimmegowda, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 752/BANG/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 153CSection 2(14)(iii)

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 306/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Trib) where it is held that when the land which does not fall under the provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of the IT Act and an assessee who is engaged in agricultural operations in such agricultural land and also being specified as agricultural land in Revenue records, the land ... agricultural land in India is not a capital asset but becomes a capital asset if it is the land located under Section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) of the Act, Section 2(14) (iii) (a) of the Act covers a situation where the subject agricultural land is located within

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 305/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 304/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

G N Venugopal, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals of assessee for all these assessment years are partly allowed

ITA 303/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

Section 127Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

Mr K. P. Manjunatha Reddy, Bangalore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 977/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Thirumala Naidu, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Mishra, D.R

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

within limits of BMRDA, that itself cannot be treated as the land is situated within the municipality or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. For this purpose, he relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of WTA No.34-36/Bang/2014 dated ... land is situated within the limit of municipality and moreover, BMRDA is not a municipal or local authority in terms of section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Act. This proposition is verified by the order of the Tribunal in the case of M.R. Pattabhiram (HUF) Vs. ACWT