<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (11) TMI 773 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253456</link>
    <description>The tribunal set aside the Ld CIT(A)&#039;s decision and directed the assessing officer not to assess gains from the sale of agricultural land as business profits. Lack of evidence supporting the classification as business profit led to allowing the appeals filed by the assessees. The tribunal found that the tax authorities did not prove the intention of the assessees to treat the lands as trading assets, highlighting the importance of substantiating such claims with concrete evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2014 06:46:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=369380" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 773 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253456</link>
      <description>The tribunal set aside the Ld CIT(A)&#039;s decision and directed the assessing officer not to assess gains from the sale of agricultural land as business profits. Lack of evidence supporting the classification as business profit led to allowing the appeals filed by the assessees. The tribunal found that the tax authorities did not prove the intention of the assessees to treat the lands as trading assets, highlighting the importance of substantiating such claims with concrete evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253456</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>