“Section 2(14)(i)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(i)4 judgments

SUNIL KHADAWALA LEGAL HEIR OF MANHAR KHADAWALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee succeeds on all substantive issues

ITA 4635/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

agricultural land? And if so, whether it is not a capital asset since not covered under clause (a) or (b) of section 2(14)(iii) so as to take it out of the definition of capital asset and thus, the compensation not taxable as capital gains? c. If the land ... been received by the Appellant is an agricultural land? And if so, whether it is covered under clause (a) or (b) of section 2(14)(i) số as to take it out of the definition of capital asset and, thus the compensation as not taxable as capital gains

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 Development Authority functions in and around the Kanpur city of Uttar Pradesh. b. It is pertinent to note that as per section 2(14)(i)(a)&(b) of IT Act, those agricultural lands which are situated within the ITA Nos. 1083/Mum/2023 M/s Allied Photographics India Ltd. Mumbai. jurisdiction ... within the municipal limits of Kanpur Municipal Corporation. Hence, the said land is not exempt from the definition of capital asset as per section 2(14)(i)(a)&(b) of IT Act. 3 In view of the above observations the assessment order passed by the A.O, without proper verification

SHRI SUNNY CHADRAKANT FUDHANAWALA,,SURAT vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIR3(3), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.271/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Sunny Chandrakant Deputy Commissioner Of Fudhnawala, 47, Matawadi, Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Vs. Nr. Bhavani Mata Mandir, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate Lambe Hanuman Road, Nr. New Civil Hospital Road, Surat-395006 Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpf 6359 G (Appellant) (Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Manish J Shah, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Ashok B. Koli, Cit-D.R

For Appellant: Shri Manish J Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-D.R

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

capital asset. Therefore Ld. PCIT pointed out that the asset sold by the assessee was not the capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(i) of the Act. ITA No.271/SRT/2019 A.Y.14-15 Sh. Sunny C. Fudhnawala Therefore, the assessment order was considered by ld PCIT as erroneous and prejudicial

M/S. SUMIT EXPORTS,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 19(3) , MUMBAI

ITA 645/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sumit Export V. Acit – 19(3) Dw-5030, 5Th Floor Matru Mandir, Tardev Road D.Tower, Bharat Diamond Bourse Mumbai – 400 007 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 Pan: Aacfs3599Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Rahul Sarda Department Represented By : Shri Manoj Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 2(47)

case of CIT vs Tata Teleservice Ltd 1221TR 594 and has held as follows: What is a capital asset is defined in section 2(14) of the IT. Act, 1961. Under that provision, a capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with ... asset or the astonishment of any night therein or the compulsory acquisition thereof under any law. The word "property", used in section 2(14) of the I.T. Act, is a word of the widest amplitude and the definition 4 M/s. Sumit Export has re-emphasised this