<?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>2019 (9) TMI 101 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385333</link>
    <description>Consideration received on sale of agricultural land does not qualify as &quot;agricultural income&quot; under Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act because rent or revenue derived from land means income generated by the land itself, not proceeds from transfer of the land. Explanation 1 to Section 2(1A) reinforces that revenue derived from land excludes income arising on transfer of land falling within Section 2(14)(iii). On this plain reading, sale proceeds are not revenue derived from land, and the land sale destroys the income-generating asset rather than producing agricultural income. The sale consideration was therefore not excludable on that basis, and no question of law arose for interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2020 15:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 101 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385333</link>
      <description>Consideration received on sale of agricultural land does not qualify as &quot;agricultural income&quot; under Section 2(1A) of the Income-tax Act because rent or revenue derived from land means income generated by the land itself, not proceeds from transfer of the land. Explanation 1 to Section 2(1A) reinforces that revenue derived from land excludes income arising on transfer of land falling within Section 2(14)(iii). On this plain reading, sale proceeds are not revenue derived from land, and the land sale destroys the income-generating asset rather than producing agricultural income. The sale consideration was therefore not excludable on that basis, and no question of law arose for interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385333</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>