<?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 (11) TMI 1206 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351327</link>
    <description>Section 54B exemption was treated as available where the assessee established agricultural use of the original land through revised revenue extracts, prior returns, and surrounding circumstances, even though the cultivation entries in the revenue records were doubtful. The purchase of other agricultural land, with consideration paid and possession accepted, was treated as sufficient qualifying reinvestment, and the provision was read liberally as a beneficial exemption. On agricultural income, the addition based on estimation was sustained in part because the Assessing Officer&#039;s receipt-based computation was found better supported by the record than the appellate reduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 May 2026 15:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=497385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 1206 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351327</link>
      <description>Section 54B exemption was treated as available where the assessee established agricultural use of the original land through revised revenue extracts, prior returns, and surrounding circumstances, even though the cultivation entries in the revenue records were doubtful. The purchase of other agricultural land, with consideration paid and possession accepted, was treated as sufficient qualifying reinvestment, and the provision was read liberally as a beneficial exemption. On agricultural income, the addition based on estimation was sustained in part because the Assessing Officer&#039;s receipt-based computation was found better supported by the record than the appellate reduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=351327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>