https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385425 Concurrent factual findings that land was situated in an urban area and was not mainly used for agriculture were upheld, so the land was treated as a capital asset and the assessee's claim of agricultural land status failed. On the interest component, the Tribunal had remanded the genuineness of the borrowing claim for fresh examination, so determination whether interest on borrowed funds formed part of cost of acquisition and qualified for indexation was held premature and left open in remand proceedings. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the surrounding documents and record indicated a conscious attempt to claim agricultural status and reduce capital gains liability. en-us Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2019 16:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385425 Concurrent factual findings that land was situated in an urban area and was not mainly used for agriculture were upheld, so the land was treated as a capital asset and the assessee's claim of agricultural land status failed. On the interest component, the Tribunal had remanded the genuineness of the borrowing claim for fresh examination, so determination whether interest on borrowed funds formed part of cost of acquisition and qualified for indexation was held premature and left open in remand proceedings. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was sustained because the surrounding documents and record indicated a conscious attempt to claim agricultural status and reduce capital gains liability. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 09 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385425