https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371447 The HC set aside the ITAT's order, ruling in favor of the Revenue. It determined that the land did not qualify as "agricultural land" under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, thereby denying the capital gains tax exemption claimed by the assessee. The court underscored the necessity of substantial evidence to establish the agricultural nature of land and clarified its jurisdiction under section 260A to correct perverse findings by the Tribunal. The decision highlighted the insufficiency of mere classification in revenue records without corroborative evidence of agricultural activity. en-us Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Nov 2024 18:19:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371447 The HC set aside the ITAT's order, ruling in favor of the Revenue. It determined that the land did not qualify as "agricultural land" under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, thereby denying the capital gains tax exemption claimed by the assessee. The court underscored the necessity of substantial evidence to establish the agricultural nature of land and clarified its jurisdiction under section 260A to correct perverse findings by the Tribunal. The decision highlighted the insufficiency of mere classification in revenue records without corroborative evidence of agricultural activity. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 11 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371447