← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)(b)(iii)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)(b)(iii)3 judgments

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

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)(b)(iii)

Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 76/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Mohammed Juned Siddiqui, Vs. Dcit/Acit-1, C-84/2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Indira Lucknow New Nagar, Lucknow-226016 Pan: Aqnps6188G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Samrat Chandra Ca & Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Lucknow Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 20.11.2024, Dismissing The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Ao Dated 30.12.2018, Passed Under Section 143(3). The Grounds Of Appeal In Both The Appeals Are As Under: - “1. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Deserves To Be Quashed Being Illegal. 2. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Bad Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Of Rs.11,38,70,742/- Under The Head Capital Gain, Which Was Exempt U/S 10(37) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Not Allowing The Benefit Of Provision Of Rfctlarr Act, 2013. 3. Because On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of Rs. 11,38,70,742/- Only On The Basis Of Roving Enquiries Without Providing An Opportunity Of Being Heard. 4. Because Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Addition Of 6,98,27,344/- Under The Head Capital Gains Being Amount

For Appellant: Sh. Samrat Chandra CA & Ms. GurneetFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 250

arial distance) and therefore, it was not agricultural land and under the definition of capital assets, by virtue of the provisions of section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Act, it was a capital asset. Thus, the benefit of section 10(37) was not available to the assessee

Prabhakar Choudhary, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the addition made by the authorities below is deleted

ITA 2161/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)

Capital Asset” as per Section 2(14) of the Act, these lands are admittedly rural agricultural land particularly in view of Section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Act and not a capital asset and thus cannot be considered for capital gains, as the case made out by the appellant

Turner Builders & Promoters Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 25(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 184/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2015-16]

Section 2(14)(b)

distance of 40 KM. from the municipal limits and any capital gain arising from its sale was exempt within the meaning of Section 2(14)(b)(iii) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (“the Act”). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in law in confirming the action