https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436546 The appellant's claim regarding the agricultural status of land was rejected as evidence supporting its agricultural nature was not provided. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 54F based on a judicial precedent, concluding the land was not agricultural. The tribunal upheld this decision, stating the appellant failed to prove the land's agricultural status. Additionally, the deduction under section 54F was allowed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the tribunal, as the appellant had invested in another residential property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Apr 2023 08:52:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436546 The appellant's claim regarding the agricultural status of land was rejected as evidence supporting its agricultural nature was not provided. The CIT(A) directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 54F based on a judicial precedent, concluding the land was not agricultural. The tribunal upheld this decision, stating the appellant failed to prove the land's agricultural status. Additionally, the deduction under section 54F was allowed by the CIT(A) and upheld by the tribunal, as the appellant had invested in another residential property, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436546