https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26946 The court held that the acquisition involved only the land, not separate transactions for trees and plants. It ruled that part of the compensation should be considered agricultural income, not capital gains. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision that the excess realized from trees and plants constitutes agricultural income exempt from taxation, citing legal precedents where such proceeds were considered capital gains. Additionally, the court deemed the Tribunal's direction to determine the cost of acquisition of the land as of April 1, 1970, as incorrect, emphasizing the proper determination of the cost of acquisition for capital assets according to the Income-tax Act. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26946 The court held that the acquisition involved only the land, not separate transactions for trees and plants. It ruled that part of the compensation should be considered agricultural income, not capital gains. The court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision that the excess realized from trees and plants constitutes agricultural income exempt from taxation, citing legal precedents where such proceeds were considered capital gains. Additionally, the court deemed the Tribunal's direction to determine the cost of acquisition of the land as of April 1, 1970, as incorrect, emphasizing the proper determination of the cost of acquisition for capital assets according to the Income-tax Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Dec 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26946