<?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 (4) TMI 1184 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194239</link>
    <description>An isolated purchase and resale of agricultural land was analysed by reference to the intention at acquisition, the surrounding circumstances, and the absence of trade-like activity. Because the land was bought and sold as agricultural land, remained cultivated, was not converted to non-agricultural use, and was not plotted or developed, the transaction was treated as capital in character rather than an adventure in the nature of trade, so it was not business income. The surplus was also treated as agricultural income and exempt, since the land lay beyond the statutory municipal-distance limit, fell outside the definition of capital asset, and retained its agricultural character throughout without any change of use.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Sep 2017 11:12:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487803" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 1184 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194239</link>
      <description>An isolated purchase and resale of agricultural land was analysed by reference to the intention at acquisition, the surrounding circumstances, and the absence of trade-like activity. Because the land was bought and sold as agricultural land, remained cultivated, was not converted to non-agricultural use, and was not plotted or developed, the transaction was treated as capital in character rather than an adventure in the nature of trade, so it was not business income. The surplus was also treated as agricultural income and exempt, since the land lay beyond the statutory municipal-distance limit, fell outside the definition of capital asset, and retained its agricultural character throughout without any change of use.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194239</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>