<?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>2017 (9) TMI 1161 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348404</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the department. It held that the municipal limits at the time of the notification should be considered for determining agricultural land and that Section 50C was not applicable to the unregistered transaction in question. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the valuation by the Assessing Officer was unjustified and amounted to harassment of a law-abiding taxpayer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490137" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1161 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348404</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee and against the department. It held that the municipal limits at the time of the notification should be considered for determining agricultural land and that Section 50C was not applicable to the unregistered transaction in question. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, emphasizing that the valuation by the Assessing Officer was unjustified and amounted to harassment of a law-abiding taxpayer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>