← 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)

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 249/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

Baldev Singh Bhadoriya, Gwalior vs. ITO-3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 37/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Smt Kiran Lata Bhadoria, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- L/H Of Late Shri Baldev 3(2), Singh Bhadoria, Gwalior Mig-20, Darpan Colony, 474005, Mp (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ahopb3071D Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(vii)

land is situated more than 8 kilometres of municipal limits and accordingly would fall outside the definition of capital asset as defined in section 2(14) of the Act and since the subject mentioned land purchased is not a capital asset, the provisions of section 56(2

Zulekha Haji Attarwala, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(1), Lalbaug

In the result, the grounds of appeal and the appeal filed by the

ITA 4978/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C. V. Bhadang & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 234Section 270ASection 54Section 56(2)(x)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C. V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Ganeshbhai Gandabhai Rabari (As Legal Heir of Deceased Gandabhai Prabhatbhai Rabari), Kalol, Gandhinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Mehsana

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

ITA 1329/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)

erred in law and facts by not deleting the addition of Rs.50,19,825/- and considered agriculture land as capital assets under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act for the purpose of computation of capital gain and therefore the Ld.AO is to be directed to Ganeshbhai Gandabhai Rabari

Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal, Rajkot, Gujarat vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.552/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Kantaben Vajubhai Paghadal Vs. It-Office, New Aayakar At- Charan Samadhiyala, Bhawan, Jetpur – 360370(Gujarat) Rajkot - 360370 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Cxmpp2962D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 250Section 56

received in respect of their ancestral agricultural land, which is fully satisfying the prescribed conditions to be an agricultural land in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and thereby the land is not a capital asset. The Collector had made payment of entire enhanced compensation with interest ... been made in case of Shri Babubhai, the relevant land was held as an agricultural land, not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the Act. However, the interest awarded as per section 28 of the Act, has been considered as chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(viii

Shri K.G Subbarama Setty, Bangalore vs. ACIT 5(2)(1) Bangalore, C R Building

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 965/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

capital gain as the land was continued to be agricultural land and it was not a capital asset with the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. Before us, the AR of the assessee neither argued this ground taken before the AO nor produced any details & evidence to show

K A Sujit Chandan, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Bengaluru.-5(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result all the three appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 964/BANG/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Siddesh N Gaddi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R
Section 127Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250

capital gain as the land was continued to be agricultural land and it was not a capital asset with the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. Before us, the AR of the assessee neither argued this ground taken before the AO nor produced any details & evidence to show

Gulab Singh, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 1(1)(1) Agra, Agra

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

ITA 453/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Gulab Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 50C, Ladamada Ward-1(1)(1), Bichpuri Sadar, Agra Agra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Faeps1251N Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Sharma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 50

capital gain that would arise on sale of the above land as it is outside the definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. The Learned AO however did not agree to the assessee’s submissions and computed the long term capital gain

Nemi Chand, Gudur vs. ITO., Ward-1, Gudur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1288/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1288/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Nemi Chand, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1-2-8/11A, 302, 3Rd Floor, Ward-1, Srinivas Street No.1, Guduru. Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana. Pan: Achpr2242L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 26/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 13/06/2025 Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”), Dated 23/04/2021 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Has 2 Nemi Chand Vs. Ito Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: 1. “Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Whether The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Was Pervasive In Considering The Income From Capital Gains As Business Income In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 2(14) Read With Section 2(47) 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. Whare Capital Gain Was Invested In Purchase/Construction Of Residential House Within Time Limit Prescribed Under Section 2 54(1), Assessment Order Allowing Assesses Claim Under Section 54 Could Not Be Treated As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest Of Revenue Only Because Capital Gain Was Not Deposited In Capital Gain Account Scheme. 3. Any Other Ground (If Any) That May Be Urged At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sri Sridhar Jhawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 2Section 2(14)Section 2(47)Section 54

Learned Commissioner of Income tax was pervasive in considering the Income from capital gains as business income in terms of provisions of section 2(14) read with section 2(47) 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. WHARE capital gain was invested in purchase/construction ... assessee to the afore mentioned partnership firm, viz., M/s. Mishri Developers through execution of GPA. The Ld. AR drawing support from section 2(14) of the Act, i.e., definition of “capital asset” submitted that the same therein contemplates that the property of any kind held by an assessee, whether

Dhananjay Estate and Reality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3808/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhandhananjay Estate & Reality Vs. Ito Private Limited Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai- Cts 40-44, S. V. Road, Goregaon 400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 104. Pan: Aabcd8868M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(14)Section 263Section 63

municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee or cantonment committee and which has a population not less than 10,000. Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act specified the land situated within aerial distance of 2KM/6KM/8KM limits from any municipality (cantonment) with population ... assessee. In current proceeding also, the assessee has not demonstrated through documentary evidences that the land in question was beyond the purview of Section 2(14) of the Act and in the immediately „2‟ previous years prior to sale, the said land was in use as agricultural activities

Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamuna Nagar Haryana vs. ITO Ward-2, Yamuna Nagar Haryana

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 550/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumat & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 550/Chd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjit Kaur Kamboj, Ito Ward-2, Lotus Valley Public School, बनाम Yamuna Nagar, Sector – 18, Huda, Haryana Vs. Yamunanagar, Haryana "ायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abmpk5213G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) िनधा""रती की ओर से/Assessee By : Ms. Meenal Goyal, Ca & Sh. Abhinav Jain, Adv. राज" की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश/Order Shri Laliet Kumar: Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2024 Of Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal, As Taken By The Assessee In Form 36, Are Reproduced As Under:

For Appellant: Ms. Meenal Goyal, CA and Sh. Abhinav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

adjudication is whether the land in question 550-Chd-2025 Manjeet Kaur Kamboj, Yamunanagar 10 constitutes an “agricultural land” within the meaning of section 2(14) of the Act. For this purpose, the Ld. AR invited our attention to page 173 of the paper book, wherein a copy ... Sales deed no.- 6352 dated 01.09.2021 during F.Y. 2011-12 relevant to A.Y. 20212-13. The land was capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the same was situated within 8 KMs from the Municipal limit of Jagadhri, distt. Yamuna Nagar. However

Anand Prakash Singh, Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3537/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year : 2016-17 Anand Prakash Singh, Vs. Acit, 4-27 A Site-4, Circle-2, Sahibabad Industrial Area, Ghaziabad. Uttar Pradesh – 201005. Pan: Bbzps5472F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate & Shri Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patwari, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

land. Whether such agricultural land was sold by him, for what consideration and whether or not it was a capital asset (as per section 2(14) of IT Act) is not ascertainable from the details filed. 3 4. In the absence of the copy of the sale deed

Gayatri, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer 2(1)(5), Agra

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

ITA 139/AGR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Agra19 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh**

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sharma, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 2(14)Section 50

capital gain that would arise on sale of the above land as it is outside the definition of capital asset under section 2(14) of the Act. The Learned AO however did not agree to the assessee's submissions and computed the long term capital gain

Shubhra Kaushik, Bilaspur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Bilaspur

ITA 563/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 563/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Arpit Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 50C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद

Ghanshyam Lal, Bilaspur vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 241/RPR/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Raipur14 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.241/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ghanshyam Lal Ward No.06, Chhatauna Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 222 Pan: Ajupl0084A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Manisha Kinnu, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 234ASection 263Section 405(1)Section 68

u/s.2(14)(iii) (b) of the Act. It was therefore evident that all the transferred lands were capital assets within the meaning of Section 2(14) of the Act and the assessee was liable to pay capital gain tax for such transfer of properties. The omission ... transferred land falls within the aforesaid limits of Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. Thus, the said land is evidently the capital asset in terms with Section 2(14) of the Act. Accordingly, the Pr. CIT held that no enquiry on this issues or non- application of mind by the A.O results

Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, Latur vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Latur, Latur

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

ITA 1386/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 54B

offered in computation of total income is with respect to rural Agricultural land not fiiting into definition of Capital Asset as per section 2 (14) of Income Tax Act, therefore your appellant praise for deletion of the same. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves ... Rs.47548176/- is hereby disallowed and added to the long term capital gain. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 8. Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applicable for A.Y.2016-17 is reproduced here as under : (14) ["capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held

Late Shri Khemraj Patidar (Through Wife and Legal Heir Smt. Bhagwati Patidar), Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 2(4), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 748/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyaniand**

Section 144Section 2(14)Section 48

exclusively used for agricultural purposes, and therefore, all transactions relating to it are exempt from capital gains tax under the provisions of Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is explicitly stated in the sale deed that the land is irrigated, cultivated, and situated beyond the municipal ... does not reflect the exact distance from municipal limit but, however, he has received information that it was outside the distance prescribed in section 2(14)(iii)(b). Therefore, the impugned land deserves exclusion from the definition of 'capital asset' in terms of section 2(14)(iii) and accordingly

Jagadishwar Barma, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1436/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 294Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad "ी रवीश सूद, माननीय

Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakaria, Jetpur vs. ITO WD 1(2)(1), Rajkot

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

ITA 156/RJT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 156/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Babubhai Kanjibhai Sakariya Vs. Ito, Wd 1(2)(1), Rajkot Plot No. 82 Satyam Park, Amarnagar Aaykar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Road, Jetpur,(Rajkot-Gujarat) -360370 Road, Rajkot 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Agnps7407C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Singhal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194ASection 250Section 28

land so acquired by government is agricultural land situated in rural area and hence it is not a capital asset as defined under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Further it is settled position that interest on enhanced compensation received u/s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 forms ... received in respect of their ancestral agricultural land, which is fully satisfying the prescribed conditions to be an agricultural land in terms of section 2(14)(iii) of the Act, and thereby the land is not a capital asset. The Collector had made payment of entire enhanced compensation with interest

Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel, Anand vs. The ITO, Ward-1(3)(1), Petlad

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

ITA 71/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.71/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ Kishan Cowk Ward-1(3)(1) V/S. Piplav, Anand – 388 460 Petlad – 388 450 Gujarat "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bixpp 2069 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Darshan Belani, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 29/09/2022 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Hon’Ble Cit(A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case By Upholding The Addition Amounting To Rs.23.30,500/- Made As Unexplained Investments In Case Of The Appellant For Ay 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add/Alter Or Amend Any Of The Ground Of Appeal.” Jayeshbhai Gordhanbhai Patel Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Belani, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 139Section 250Section 253(5)

unexplained investment was unjustified, and that the amount represented proceeds from sale of agricultural land not chargeable to tax under section 2(14) of the Act. However, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not respond to any of the notices of hearing issued under section