ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, following its earlier decision in the connected case of the assessee's spouse for the same transaction, and held that the impugned land was agricultural land. Consequently, the land did not give rise to taxable capital gains and the exemption claim under s.54B could not be denied merely on the AO's allegation regarding intended non-agricultural use by the purchaser or alleged non-compliance with s.63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act. ITAT held that the AO's basis for reopening under s.147, premised on alleged failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, was unsustainable, and the reassessment addition was deleted.
ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal, following its earlier decision in the connected case of the assessee's spouse for the same transaction, and held that the impugned land was agricultural land. Consequently, the land did not give rise to taxable capital gains and the exemption claim under s.54B could not be denied merely on the AO's allegation regarding intended non-agricultural use by the purchaser or alleged non-compliance with s.63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act. ITAT held that the AO's basis for reopening under s.147, premised on alleged failure to fully and truly disclose material facts, was unsustainable, and the reassessment addition was deleted.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
