How many judgments are there on Section 2(14)(iii)(b)?

BharatTax indexes 43 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Income Tax Act?

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax (127 ITR 671) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii)(b), cited in 21 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.

Q: Which cases are most cited on Section 2(14)(iii)(b)?

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax (127 ITR 671) — 21 citing judgments; CIT v. Ashok Kumar Rathi (404 ITR 173) — 15 citing judgments; Trib.) 6. Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle (34 Taxmann.com 286) — 7 citing judgments; Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Anthony John Pereira\n (425 ITR 134) — 5 citing judgments; Delhi). In Ashish Gupta v. ITO (163 Taxmann.com 739) — 4 citing judgments.

The decision most relied on for Section 2(14)(iii)(b) is Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax (127 ITR 671), cited in 21 of the 43 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 2(14)(iii)(b)

Dr. Motibhai D. Patel v. Commissioner of Income-tax

127 ITR 671 · 1981 · High Court

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

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.

Trib.) 6. Smt. (Dr.) Subha Tripathi v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle

34 Taxmann.com 286 · 2013 · ITAT

citing judgments

Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Anthony John Pereira\n

425 ITR 134 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Delhi). In Ashish Gupta v. ITO

163 Taxmann.com 739 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

PCIT v. M/s. K.P.R. Developers Ltd.

311 CTR 832 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 2(14)(iii)(b)

Kamal Namdev Nimhan, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 2547/PUN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri.Pratik Sandbhor.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Mithun Shete.CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 194ISection 2(14)(iii)

Phool Singh Raghav, Gurgaon vs. Assessing Officer, Gurgaon

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

ITA 3556/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Sept 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: DIRPS0092G

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250

Deshraj, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward (1)(2), Ghaziabad

ITA 2671/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2012-13]

Section 147Section 148Section 54BSection 54F

ITO, Delhi vs. Varun Manchanda, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2278/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Vice- & Mrs. Renu Jauhri, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Varun Arya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

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

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

Smt. Pushpa Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO Ward 5(2), Indore, Aaykar Bhawan, Opposite White Church, Residency Area

Appeal is allowed

ITA 499/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 54B

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 845/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 4095/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 4229/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2019-20 Ita No. 845/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Neetu Yadav, Vs Income Tax Officer, 164-P, Sector-15, Part-1, Ward-3(1), Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abfpy2785C Assessee By : Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. & Sh. Archit Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.09.2025 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: These Assessee’S Three Appeals In Ita Nos. 4095 & 4229/Del/2024 & Ita No. 845/Del/2025 For Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20, Arise Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024- 25/1066728710(1) & 1067097100(1) & 1066774096(1) Dated 15.07.2024, 16.07.2024 & 29.07.2024 In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Gurgaon

ITA 4229/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Neetu Yadav, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Office, Gurgaon

ITA 4095/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Anand Kumar Pandey, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)

Naresh Chander Wasan (Indv), Gurgaon vs. ITO, Wrds 3(1), Gurgaon

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 847/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Naresh Chander Wasan (Indiv.), Vs Ito, Haryana Timber Stores, Ward-3(1), Basai Road, Gurgaon. Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001. Pan: Aabpw1804H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

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

Thomas Cherian, Thane vs. DCIT Circle Intl. Txn

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 776/COCH/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2021-22 Thomas Cherian .......... Appellant A-2, Happy House, Sector A9, Navi Mumbai Vashi, Thane 400703 [Pan: Apjpc6676G] Vs. Dcit (International Taxation) .......... Respondent Thiruvananthapuram Appellant By: Shri Vardhaman Jain, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Vardhaman Jain, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)(iii)Section 50CSection 53C

Balbir Singh Saini, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 2170/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Jai Bhagwan Saini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(b)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 2(14)(iiib)

Income Tax Officer, C.R Building I.P Estate vs. Dpag Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3237/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Dpag Infrastructure Pvt. C.R. Building Ltd., New Delhi C-28, 2Nd Floor, Panchsheel Marg, New Delhi Pan: Aadcd5880H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Manpreet Singh, Ca Department By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)

ITO, Jaipur vs. Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur

ITA 84/JPR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

Pooja Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 927/JPR/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: This Tribunal Revenue As Well As The Assessee-Appellant

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar CIT-DR &

Section 2

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sharp Business Systems India Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 2936/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

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

Vinod Rana, Meerut vs. ITO Ward 1(2)(4), Meerut

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 796/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)(iii)Section 3

Ashish Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 13/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Ashish Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (1), R-11/32, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad – 201 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Agipg3854E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subodh Gupta, Ca Shri Mukesh Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 Date Of Order : 13.06.2024 Order Per Shamim Yahya: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals), Ghaziabad Dated 25.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. Because The Order Of Ld. Lower Authority Is Bad In Law As Well As Is Against The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. Because Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Long Term Capital Gain Rs.13230858/- By Wrongly Observing That Land Situated At Village Masuri Pargana Dasna Is Within The Municipal Limits Of Ghaziabad Though The Agricultural Land Is Undisputedly Beyond

For Appellant: Shri Subodh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

Section 2(14)

Bojjala Venkata Sudhir Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 342/HYD/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 May 2024AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Kumar Chakrapani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, DR

Section 2(14)(iii)