https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371505 Additional evidence supporting the claim that land sold was agricultural land and that the resulting gain was exempt from tax should be admitted where it is material to determining whether the land was a capital asset. Evidence rejected only at the threshold under Rule 46A should not be excluded when substantial justice requires consideration on merits. Any third-party or public authority material relied on against the assessee must be furnished for rebuttal. The assessee retains the burden of proving entitlement to exemption, and the matter was restored for fresh examination and de novo assessment in accordance with law. en-us Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Dec 2018 06:37:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371505 Additional evidence supporting the claim that land sold was agricultural land and that the resulting gain was exempt from tax should be admitted where it is material to determining whether the land was a capital asset. Evidence rejected only at the threshold under Rule 46A should not be excluded when substantial justice requires consideration on merits. Any third-party or public authority material relied on against the assessee must be furnished for rebuttal. The assessee retains the burden of proving entitlement to exemption, and the matter was restored for fresh examination and de novo assessment in accordance with law. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371505