https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414930 The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The Court emphasized that the Principal Commissioner's revision order under Section 263 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer's decision was not erroneous. It was found that the agricultural land in question did not qualify as a 'Capital Asset' for LTCG assessment. The Court highlighted the necessity for a deviation from the law to deem an order erroneous under Section 263. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414930 The High Court upheld the ITAT's decision, ruling in favor of the Respondent. The Court emphasized that the Principal Commissioner's revision order under Section 263 was unwarranted as the Assessing Officer's decision was not erroneous. It was found that the agricultural land in question did not qualify as a 'Capital Asset' for LTCG assessment. The Court highlighted the necessity for a deviation from the law to deem an order erroneous under Section 263. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 16 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=414930