← 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)

Mahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, Dekavada, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1672/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblemahipatsinh Ramseenh Solankee, Vs. 154-C, Vibhag-1, Kakubha No Income Tax Officer, Madh, Dekavada, Detroj Rampura, Ward 3(3)(5, Ahmedabad-382120 Ahmedabad [Pan : Grips 1892 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri S.V. Agrawal, Ar & Shri Divya S. Agrawal, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri Abhijit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 48

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE, JUDICIAL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Faridabad vs. Dharam Singh, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1839/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshito, Vs. Dharam Singh, Ward-1(1), 604, Sector-14, Faridabad Faridabad Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Actps5801J Assessee By : Shri Vibhor Garg, Ca Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2026

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 147Section 148Section 6

Faridabad City, is under municipal limits even by 2011 Census and hence would be a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. The ld AO also observed that the ancestral land of the assessee was sold for industrial purposes to M/s. TIDCL ... Rural Agriculture land and Urban Agriculture land as understood from the definition of capital asset being an agricultural land as defined in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. A land is said to be Rural Agricultural Land: (a) If situated in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction

Swaran Kaur, Mohali Sas Nagar vs. Assessing Officer, Ropar

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

ITA 779/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Ms. Purminder Kaur, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 2(14)Section 250(6)Section 44A

sold the rural agricultural land which is 8 kms away from the municipal corporation limit to Lanchester group (Buyer). As per section 2(14) of the income tax act 1961, agricultural land situated in rural area is not treated as a capital asset. Agricultural land situated beyond the jurisdiction ... assessee had raised specific grounds before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding whether the land sold constituted a “capital asset” within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act and whether the cash deposits represented taxable income or exempt receipts. These issues required examination on merits, even in the absence

Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, Nashik vs. The ITO Ward-1(3), Nashik

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

ITA 2858/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

27/03/2017. Therefore, in absence of any submission of the assessee, the property sold is held as a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, the benefit of indexation cost for acquisition of the property is denied in absence of supporting documentary evidences. Therefore

Jagmeet Singh Sabharwal, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 954/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Surendra Singh Sabharwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 50C

more than a period of thirty-six months is in the nature of Long Term Capital Asset. Further, the word "held" used in Section 2(14) of the Act implies right over a capital asset. In the instant case of the assessee, the right over the property was held

Mukul Monga, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5) Gurgaon, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Mukul Monga, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, H. No. 100, Sector-30, Ward 2(5), Gurgaon Gurgaon Haryana Pan No. Ajqpm2226F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta & Shri SomailFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

kilometers from the nearest municipal corporation (Municipal Corporation of Gurgaon), and therefore does not fall within the definition of "capital asset" as per Section 2(14)(iii) (b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in ignoring ... when the Assessee had made a valid claim, supported by evidence, that the land was not a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer that the plot purchased

Deepa Agarwal, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1), Gwalior

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

ITA 481/AGR/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani
Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

Rs.2,18,270/- & subsequently also furnished reply stating that both the property sold were agricultural land and not capital asset as per section 2(14) of the IT Act, therefore does not attract any capital gain liable to income tax. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee

Vanraj Ranchhoddas Merchant (Through Legal Heir Harshit Merchant), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5234/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50CSection 54F

capital asset, being land or building or both'. This will have to be related to the definition of 'capital asset', as occurring in Section 2(14) of the IT Act. A perusal of the definition of 'Capital Asset' as contained in Section 2(14) of the IT Act would indicate

Sumer Singh, Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari (Jao), Rewari

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

ITA 5214/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sumer Singh (Self Assessee)For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

ITA 5214/DEL/2025 SUMER SINGH, REWARI VS. ITO, REWARI (JAO), REWARI IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW

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

Income Tax Officer, Delhi vs. Amira Apparels Ltd, Delhi

In the result, this appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4473/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.4473/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2017-18 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Amira Apparels Ltd. Room No.375, Central Revenue Building, Vs. 1/16, East Patel Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No.Aaaca2992A अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 250

Also Section 6 2(14)(iii) defines agricultural land in India. For the sake of reference, the two sections deserve to be extracted: Section 2(14)(iii): “[(iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality ... acres) that has been treated as agricultural land on the strength of its description in the revenue records, it is felt that Section 2(14)(iii) of the Act requires a degree of fact finding which was certainly not done by the Ld. AO as no documents were produced before

Chinnakannu Sundhar, Ponneri vs. ITO, Ncw-10(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay application is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 3190/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3190/Chny/2025 & S.A No.124/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Chinnakkannu Sundhar, The Income Tax Officer, Peruncherry, Vs. Non Corporate Ward-10(3), Panchetty, Ponneri-600 052. Chennai. Pan: Eyrps 6145H

For Appellant: Ms. S. Deepika, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250

fact that the same land sold by the brother of this Appellant has been considered as Agricultural land exemption was given under Section 2(14) (iii) of the act and the issue was closed. 6. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals should have found that AO is not correct

Thakorbhai Maganbhai Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward- 3(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 532/AHD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 271(1)(c)

that the land sold was agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits and hence not a “capital asset” within the meaning of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. 3. Initially, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act on 23.01.2013 accepting ... Municipal Corporation limits based on statements of municipal authorities, certificates obtained during investigation and other material, and therefore constituted a capital asset under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer further held that the sale consideration recorded in the sale deed was only 24,98,000/-, while

Bharati Nimba Patil, Nashik vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 503/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.503/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Bharati Nimba Patil, Vs. Ito, Nfac, Delhi. S. No.235, P. No.53, 54, Shri Datta Krupa Kalanagar Mhasarul, Behind Aakash Petrol Pump, Nashik- 422004. Pan : Akapp7755P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal In Limine & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.48,75,000 Made By The A.O. In The Ex-Parte Asst. Order U/S 144 R.Ws. 147 Passed During Covid Period, By Taxing The Entire Consideration Received On Sale Of Agricultural Land As Stcg Without Verifying The Contention Raised In Form 35 That The Impugned Land Was Rural Agricultural

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Aadarsh Surana, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1840/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri. R.Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 47Section 68

rights. A running business or an industrial undertaking, when transferred as a going concern, is undoubtedly a capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. 116. Equally important is the requirement of "transfer" of such capital asset. Section 2(47) of the Act defines the term

Laxman Bhau Pawale, at Post Pirangut Mukaiwadi Pune vs. ITO Ward 2.4 Range Code 53, Pune Swarget

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

ITA 1541/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Sudam KudaleFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

made any addition and treated the land sold as agricultural land and not as capital asset within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. It is his submission that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing ... assessee that he has accepted the sale of land as agricultural land and not a capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. Although the assessee has not participated in the assessment proceedings, however, we find the assessee filed various details before

Ramsinhji Meraji Vanzara, Gandhinagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar

The appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1449/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Jagrat Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Uady Kishanrao Kakne, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 250Section 270Section 54BSection 54B(1)

bringing to tax the alleged capital gains on sale of rural agricultural land, which is not a "capital asset" within the meaning of Section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The land sold was situated more than 8 km outside the municipal limits, was used for agricultural

Ram Manohar Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 145/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshram Manohar Kumar, Vs. Ito, C/O. K. R. Manjani, Adv, Ward-2(2), Add0-29, Basement, Ghaziabad Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aiopk9764F Assessee By : Shri K. R. Manjani, Adv Shri Tarun Ashwani, Adv Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Manjani, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)

share is 1/6 and not ¼. It was also pleaded that the land sold is outside the definition of capital asset in terms of Section 2(14) of the Act and accordingly, the assessee is not liable for capital gains tax at all. Further, there was no appearance before ... adjudication of the issue in dispute as to whether subject mentioned land that was sold is a capital asset within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act or not. It was also submitted that in any event the ld AO ought to have granted deduction for the cost

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