<?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>2016 (3) TMI 491 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325307</link>
    <description>The Tribunal concluded that the land could not be considered agricultural based on various factors, including its location in a developing area and high sale price. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed, overturning the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds were taxable as capital gains, as the land did not qualify as agricultural under Sec 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2016 10:15:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420271" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 491 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325307</link>
      <description>The Tribunal concluded that the land could not be considered agricultural based on various factors, including its location in a developing area and high sale price. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed, overturning the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) decision. The Tribunal held that the sale proceeds were taxable as capital gains, as the land did not qualify as agricultural under Sec 2(14) of the Income Tax Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325307</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>