https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25632 The court found in favor of the Revenue, ruling that the land did not qualify for exemption under the Wealth-tax Act as agricultural property. The court criticized the Tribunal for not assessing if the land was used for agricultural purposes during the relevant year, emphasizing the lack of evidence of agricultural activities beyond the presence of trees. The court rejected the assessee's request for a second chance to provide evidence, stating the burden was initially on the assessee. Each party was directed to bear their costs, and the case was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. en-us Tue, 07 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:15:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25632 The court found in favor of the Revenue, ruling that the land did not qualify for exemption under the Wealth-tax Act as agricultural property. The court criticized the Tribunal for not assessing if the land was used for agricultural purposes during the relevant year, emphasizing the lack of evidence of agricultural activities beyond the presence of trees. The court rejected the assessee's request for a second chance to provide evidence, stating the burden was initially on the assessee. Each party was directed to bear their costs, and the case was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 07 Apr 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25632