<?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>2002 (5) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10875</link>
    <description>The dominant issue was entitlement to exemption under s.54B for capital gains on sale of land, specifically whether the statutory condition requiring use of the land for agricultural purposes was satisfied. The HC held that s.54B relief is available on transfer of a capital asset being land, and the Department could not, without evidence, dispute agricultural use after assessing income; in any event, the Tribunal&#039;s finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes was supported by cogent material and revenue records. Consequently, objections that the land lay in a commercial area, was partly put to non-agricultural use, or was purchased for non-agricultural purposes were irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed in limine as raising no substantial question of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2025 10:32:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 6 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10875</link>
      <description>The dominant issue was entitlement to exemption under s.54B for capital gains on sale of land, specifically whether the statutory condition requiring use of the land for agricultural purposes was satisfied. The HC held that s.54B relief is available on transfer of a capital asset being land, and the Department could not, without evidence, dispute agricultural use after assessing income; in any event, the Tribunal&#039;s finding that the land was used for agricultural purposes was supported by cogent material and revenue records. Consequently, objections that the land lay in a commercial area, was partly put to non-agricultural use, or was purchased for non-agricultural purposes were irrelevant. The appeal was dismissed in limine as raising no substantial question of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10875</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>