https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22217 Compensation received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land could not be sustained as business profit where the Tribunal followed earlier authority holding that such excess receipt was not taxable on that footing. The Revenue also could not introduce, for the first time in reference proceedings under section 256(1), an alternative contention that the amount was taxable as capital gains, because that issue had not been raised before the Income-tax Officer, the appellate authority, or the Tribunal. The addition was therefore not restored, and the new capital gains argument was rejected as outside reference jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 20 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:39:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22217 Compensation received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land could not be sustained as business profit where the Tribunal followed earlier authority holding that such excess receipt was not taxable on that footing. The Revenue also could not introduce, for the first time in reference proceedings under section 256(1), an alternative contention that the amount was taxable as capital gains, because that issue had not been raised before the Income-tax Officer, the appellate authority, or the Tribunal. The addition was therefore not restored, and the new capital gains argument was rejected as outside reference jurisdiction. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 20 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22217