https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282010 Section 54B relief was sustained because a contiguous agricultural holding need not be cultivated across every survey number or its full extent for the two years before transfer; cultivation on different portions during the relevant period satisfied the statutory use requirement, and the unexplained record showed that water shortage and related constraints prevented full cultivation. The site plan produced before the first appellate authority did not breach Rule 46A because it was only a map already forming part of the sale deed before the Assessing Officer and was used to show contiguity, not as new evidence. The Revenue's challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:23:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282010 Section 54B relief was sustained because a contiguous agricultural holding need not be cultivated across every survey number or its full extent for the two years before transfer; cultivation on different portions during the relevant period satisfied the statutory use requirement, and the unexplained record showed that water shortage and related constraints prevented full cultivation. The site plan produced before the first appellate authority did not breach Rule 46A because it was only a map already forming part of the sale deed before the Assessing Officer and was used to show contiguity, not as new evidence. The Revenue's challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282010