https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341656 Agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal distance was not treated as an urban capital asset where the assessee produced municipal material showing the land was more than 8 kilometres from the municipal limits and the village population was below 10,000. The revenue did not rebut that evidence with cogent material, and the inference that two village names referred to the same village was unsupported by concrete proof. On those facts, the short-term capital gain addition on sale of land was not justified and was deleted. en-us Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Apr 2017 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341656 Agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal distance was not treated as an urban capital asset where the assessee produced municipal material showing the land was more than 8 kilometres from the municipal limits and the village population was below 10,000. The revenue did not rebut that evidence with cogent material, and the inference that two village names referred to the same village was unsupported by concrete proof. On those facts, the short-term capital gain addition on sale of land was not justified and was deleted. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341656