https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26877 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the capital gain from the sale of agricultural land in Periakuppam village is not exempt under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the population criterion for classification as a capital asset applies to the municipality as a whole, not specific areas within it. The decision aligned with the interpretation established in Addl. CIT v. G. M. Omarkhan [1979] 116 ITR 950 (AP), affirming that the population requirement pertains to the municipality or cantonment. en-us Fri, 12 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 10:55:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26877 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the capital gain from the sale of agricultural land in Periakuppam village is not exempt under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court determined that the population criterion for classification as a capital asset applies to the municipality as a whole, not specific areas within it. The decision aligned with the interpretation established in Addl. CIT v. G. M. Omarkhan [1979] 116 ITR 950 (AP), affirming that the population requirement pertains to the municipality or cantonment. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26877