https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386858 Deduction under section 54F was accepted because additional evidence on construction and supporting records was admitted in Rule 46A proceedings, examined in remand, and remained unchallenged by the department. Deduction under section 54B was denied because the land sold had been converted to non-agricultural use about nine months before transfer, so the statutory agricultural-use condition for the preceding two years was not met. The additions for cost of improvement and brokerage-based transfer expenses were deleted as the assessee produced vouchers, confirmations and identity documents, which were not controverted in remand. Reopening under sections 147 and 148 was upheld because the recorded reasons showed tangible material suggesting escapement of income. en-us Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 16:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386858 Deduction under section 54F was accepted because additional evidence on construction and supporting records was admitted in Rule 46A proceedings, examined in remand, and remained unchallenged by the department. Deduction under section 54B was denied because the land sold had been converted to non-agricultural use about nine months before transfer, so the statutory agricultural-use condition for the preceding two years was not met. The additions for cost of improvement and brokerage-based transfer expenses were deleted as the assessee produced vouchers, confirmations and identity documents, which were not controverted in remand. Reopening under sections 147 and 148 was upheld because the recorded reasons showed tangible material suggesting escapement of income. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386858