← All Phrases

“Section 2(14)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(14)695 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI
199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court
267
citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

CIT v. Siemens Aktiongesellschaft
310 ITR 320 · 2009 · High Court
259
citing judgments

Reimbursements of actual expenses without any profit element are not taxable income. Additionally, mere amendments to the Income-tax Act do not override the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs).

Smt. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim v. CIT
204 ITR 631 · 1993 · Supreme Court
197
citing judgments

The determinative test for whether land is agricultural land or a capital asset is its actual user for agricultural purposes, not merely ownership. An explicit intention to stop cultivation or convert the land to non-agricultural use can cause it to lose its agricultural character, making its sale proceeds chargeable to capital gains tax.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
27 ITR 34 · 1955 · Supreme Court
174
citing judgments

The Supreme Court established the foundational test for distinguishing between capital and revenue expenditure, holding that the aim and object of the expenditure and whether it brings into existence an asset or an advantage of an enduring nature determines its character, irrespective of the payment method. An advantage lasting five years or more can be considered enduring.

CIT v. D.P. Sandhu & Bros.
273 ITR 1 · 2005 · Supreme Court
140
citing judgments

Surrender of tenancy rights is a transfer of a capital asset, and the consideration received is a capital receipt subject to capital gains tax. If the cost of acquisition cannot be determined, the transfer of such an asset was not taxable under capital gains prior to the amendment of Section 55(2) in 1995.

CIT v. Raja Benoy Kumar Sahas Roy
32 ITR 466 · 1957 · Supreme Court
132
citing judgments

Income is considered agricultural income, exempt under Section 10(1), only if the land undergoes a measure of cultivation involving basic primary operations prior to germination and subsequent post-germination activities requiring human skill and labour.

S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT, Calcutta
83 ITR 700 · 1972 · Supreme Court
126
citing judgments

Income from sources not falling under any other head of income under Section 14 of the Income Tax Act is taxed under the residuary head 'income from other sources'. If income cannot be taxed under Section 45 (capital gains), it cannot be taxed at all.

CIT v. Market Committee, Pipli
330 ITR 16 · 2011 · High Court
113
citing judgments

A charitable trust can claim depreciation on assets when computing the income applied for charitable or religious purposes under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, for assessment years prior to the introduction of Section 11(6). The restriction on claiming depreciation, as introduced by Section 11(6), is prospective from AY 2015-16.

Judgments citing Section 2(14)

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncq-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2323/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

P.Yasodha, inter alia deleted the addition by holding that the land in question as not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act being an agricultural land and hence, no tax would be liable from transfer of it and therefore, he deleted the LTCG ... screen shot from the website of the Income Tax department, wherein it is stated that such land is an agricultural land as per section 2(14) of the Act. ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 6 :: j. Assessment orders of assessee’s sister Smt. P.Yasodha as well

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2322/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

P.Yasodha, inter alia deleted the addition by holding that the land in question as not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act being an agricultural land and hence, no tax would be liable from transfer of it and therefore, he deleted the LTCG ... screen shot from the website of the Income Tax department, wherein it is stated that such land is an agricultural land as per section 2(14) of the Act. ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 6 :: j. Assessment orders of assessee’s sister Smt. P.Yasodha as well

Prema, Chengalpattu vs. ITO, Ncw-22(1), Tambaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2321/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.S.P.Chidambaram
Section 139(1)Section 50C

P.Yasodha, inter alia deleted the addition by holding that the land in question as not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act being an agricultural land and hence, no tax would be liable from transfer of it and therefore, he deleted the LTCG ... screen shot from the website of the Income Tax department, wherein it is stated that such land is an agricultural land as per section 2(14) of the Act. ITA Nos.2321 to 2324/Chny/2024 (AY 2016-17) Smt. Prema :: 6 :: j. Assessment orders of assessee’s sister Smt. P.Yasodha as well

Sunitha Nair, Palakkad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 125/RPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.125/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sivadas Chettoor, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 148

constructed on the land, the property cannot be said to be an agricultural land and therefore, it is a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. The A.O also observed that since no details in respect of purchase of the subject property were available, therefore, no deduction

Ramkaran Singh, Panchkula vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panchkula

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 439/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: him and as such the order passed is arbitrary and unjustified.

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

your kind perusal and consideration. In view of the above, the Agricultural Lands sold by the assessee were not "CAPITAL ASSET" under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 being not filling under any specified MC and as such sale thereof is not liable for Capital Gains ... from the mu municipal limits in all directions” was included for the purposes of determination of the capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. No separate notification was issued by the CBDR with respect to Pinjore Municipality or the land situated in vicinity thereof. It is the settled

Najma Siddiqui, Bhopal vs. ITO-3(1), Bhopal

ITA 606/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Udayan Das Guptaassessment Year:2012-13 Najma Siddiqui Ito 3(1) 131, Housing Board Bhopal बनाम/ Colony Kohe Fiza Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Anepb8802G Assesseeby Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement .02.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

that land sold was not a capital asset but the same is a rural agricultural land i.e. not a capital asset as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and secondly the AO had not considered the index cost of acquisition of agricultural land sold. Further

Mr. Jobanji Thakor, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO. Ward-3(2)(2), Ahmedabad

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 264/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.264/Ahd/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mr. Jobanji Thakor The Ito F-40, Abugiri Society बनाम / Ward-3(2)(2) Tal. Daskroi, Jagatpur V/S. Ahmedabad Ahmedabad - 382 470 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aknpt 2930 M (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul K. Patel, Ar Revenue By : Shri A.P. Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 26/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)"] Dated 28.12.2018, Confirming The Assessment Order Dated 29.12.2017 Passed By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16.

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

land sold by the assessee did not qualify as agricultural land but rather fell within the Municipality/AUDA/Corporation limits as per the provisions of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that the land was a capital asset and subject to capital gains tax. 2

Vasuben Natwerlal Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Old Ward-1(3)(9) New Ward- 1(2)(6), Surat

ITA 987/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat20 Feb 2025AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 54

located at village Ambheta, Sub District Olpad, District Surat is an agricultural land, does not amount to capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, consequently, no income tax can be levied.” 2. Vide application dated 23.09.2024 assessee has raised following additional grounds

Rukmani Devi, Jaipur vs. ACIT Holding Charge of ITO Ward-7(2), Jaipur

ITA 1446/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM आयकरअपील सं./ITA No. 1446/JP/2024 निर्धारणवर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Rukmani Devi 8, Mukhiya Abad Vidhani Sanganer, Jaipur 302 017 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 7(2) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.:AWLPD 2180 M अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA., Ms. Apeksha Kalra, Adv. राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA. & Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 148Section 250

under the provisions of the income tax Act, 1961 The above immovable property is a capital asset within the meaning of provisions of section 2(14) of the income tax Act, 1961 as the above immovable property is situated within limits of Jaipur municipal corporation Jaipur However, the appellant

DCIT, Mum vs. Shelter Developers, Mum

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is

ITA 3753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Vaghubha Danubha Zala, Wankaner vs. Assessment Unit/ the ITO, Ward-1, Wankaner

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

ITA 396/RJT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot14 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaamet Steed /Ita No.396/Rit/2023

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)

support of his claim that the land sold was a rural agricultural land and not a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and hereby retaining the addition of Rs. 3,32,40,000/- by considering stamp duty paid for land ... village as certified by Dhuva Gram Panchayat is about 3037 only. Therefore, the land sold was a rural agricultural land which as per section 2(14)(iii) of the Act is not a capital asset. In this regard, the appellant had submitted copy of the sale deed and certificate

Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2, Bardoli

ITA 506/SRT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.506/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Kanchanben Maheshbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 170, Tarsada Bar, Al Mandvi, Surat – Ward – 2, 394160 Bardoli "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bkipp5896G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2025

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

account of alleged long term capital gain on the sale of agriculture land not being capital asset within meaning of section 2(14)(iii)(III). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income ... provision of section 50C to compute the capital gain on sale of agriculture land which is not capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii). 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner

Bhagirath Pakharia, Jhansi vs. Ward 2 (3)(1), Jhansi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 402/AGR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs. Ito, Bhagirath Pakharia, 124, Nanak Ganj Sipri Ward-2(3)(1), Bazar, Jhansi, Jhansi Uttar Pradesh Pan :Amdpp6709L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Prarthana Jalan, Ca Department By Sh. Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.02.2025 Order

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)

impugned addition comes into play only when the assessee concerned receives any immovable property in the nature of a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that we note that there is no indication in both the learned lower authorities respective

Ananthan, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2353/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2353/Chny/2024 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Ananthan, The Income Tax Officer, No.20/1, No.20/1, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-1(1), Nainar Nadar Street, Chennai. Mylapore – 600 004. [Pan: Avzpa 8402E]

For Appellant: Shri Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. G. Saratha, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक

Venkataram Spinning Mills Private Limited, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, assessee appeal is partly allowed

ITA 87/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Balakrishnan. Sassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkataram Spinning Mills Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Private Limited, Guntur. Guntur. Pan : Aafcv2151H. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Ar. Revenue By: Shri Ld.Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit- Dr. Date Of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ld.DR. Satyasai Rath, CIT-
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45

other name” include the capital region also. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Section 2(14)(iii) (a) and (b) of the Act provides as under : Section 2(14) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (14)"capital asset" means— (iii) agricultural land ... cantonment board etc., still continues to be excluded from the definition of 'capital asset'. Accordingly, in view of sub-clause (b) of 13 section 2(14)(iii) of the Act even under the amended definition of expression 'capital asset', the agricultural land situated in rural areas continues to be excluded

M/S. Beaver Automotive Private Limtied, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 1433/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, JCIT-DR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 14ASection 234B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, Pali vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2532/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2532/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Madhubala Indrakumar Parmar, V The Income Tax Officer, Bazar Peth, At Post Pali,Taluka S Ward-4, Panvel. Sudhagad, District Raigad, Maharashtra – 410205. Pan: Aatpp5508P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Subhodh Ratnaparkhi – Ar Revenue By Miss Indira R Adakil – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 10.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order . The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Upholding Addition To The Extent Of Rs.8,50,834/- U/S 56(2)(Vii)(B)(Ii) Of The I.T.Act 1961, On Account Of Difference Between The Actual Purchase Consideration Of Agricultural Land At Pali, Taluka Sudhagad, Dist. Raigad & The Value As Per

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

taxmann.com 347 (Jaipur Trib.) [2024]. In the present case, the land purchased is rural agricultural land covered exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act and thus not a capital asset. The Hon. CIT(A) however dismissed the ground by stating that "As this issue was not raised ... such consideration: ………………………….. (d) "property" means the following capital asset of the assessee, namely:— (i) immovable property being land or building or both;” 4.2 Section 2(14) of the Act is reproduced here as under: (14) 8["capital asset" means— ………………………….. (iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate

Ajay Thakur, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward-1(1)(1)1, Dehradun

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 60/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ajay Thakur, S/O- Sh. Surendra Singh, 31-Purbiya Ward-1(1)(1)1, Lines, Hospital Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Dehradun Pan: Afkpt5059D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Department By Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.01.2025 Order

Section 115BSection 147Section 2(14)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

discussion against the assessee that his land purchased forming the subject matter of the impugned addition is in fact a capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. 5. The Revenue at this stage relies on the assessment discussion in para 8 that the learned coordinate bench

Netrananda Nayak, Puri vs. ITO, Puri Ward, Puri

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathanmember & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2013-14 Netrananda Netrananda Nayak, Nayak, At: At: Vs. Income Tax Officer, Puri Income Tax Officer, Puri Khandiabandha, Khandiabandha, Po: Po: Word, Puri. Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Gopinathpur, Atharnala, Puri Pan/Gir No. No.Ajspn 1567 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Niranjan Panda, Ca Niranjan Panda, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 27/01/20 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi Dated 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar 30.6.2023 In Appeal No. Cit(A),Bhubaneswar- 2/10186/2019-20 20 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Shri Niranjan Niranjan Panda, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri The Assessee & Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. , Sr. Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Niranjan Panda, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Section 148

from the P a g e 13 | 18 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Muncipality limit in all directions of Puri for the purpose of section 2(14)(sub-clause(iii). The notification of the Central Government was mandatory to bring the land in the definition of capital asset which ... limits of Puri Municipality, therefore, in order to determine whether the land in question falls under the mischief of sub- clause (b) of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, the distance of 2 kms has to be taken into account in terms of notification dated 6-01-1994. Further

Cheers Interactive (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2418/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 43A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT