Section 10(37) exemption upheld where concurrent findings confirmed public-purpose acquisition of agricultural land and no substantial question arose.

Exemption under section 10(37) was upheld for consideration received on transfer of agricultural land, because the lower authorities found that the land was acquired for a public purpose under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and that the statutory conditions for relief were satisfied. The Revenue's contention that the transfer was merely by negotiation, and that the land had not been used for agricultural purposes in the relevant period, was treated as a factual objection not raised earlier and unsupported by any showing of perversity in the concurrent findings. No substantial question of law arose for interference under section 260A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 10(37) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of consideration received on transfer of agricultural land, and whether any substantial question of law arose from the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities.

Analysis: The assessment was reopened on the basis that land at Dindoli, Surat transferred to the Surat Municipal Corporation for a Sewage Treatment Plant was a capital asset. The Revenue's case was that the transfer was by negotiation and not by compulsory acquisition, and that the conditions for exemption under section 10(37) were not satisfied. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal, relying on the earlier decision concerning the same land acquisition, held that the land was acquired for a public purpose within the scheme of compulsory acquisition under the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development Act, 1976 and that the assessee satisfied the statutory requirements for exemption. The Court noted that the additional objection regarding non-use of the land for agricultural purposes in the two years preceding the transfer was a factual contention not raised before the Assessing Officer or the appellate authorities and no perversity in the concurrent findings was shown.

Conclusion: The assessee's entitlement to exemption under section 10(37) was upheld, and no substantial question of law arose for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the authorities below return concurrent findings of fact that the statutory conditions for exemption are satisfied, and no perversity or omission of relevant material is shown, the High Court will not interfere in an appeal under section 260A as no substantial question of law arises.

---