https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447023 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal in rectification proceedings under Section 154. The tribunal held that capital gains from sale of agricultural land were exempt from tax as the land did not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14). The AO had erroneously denied exemption under Section 54B, noting the assessee mistakenly claimed exemption under Section 54 instead. The tribunal ruled that even if the agricultural land were considered a capital asset, the assessee would still be entitled to exemption under Section 54B having purchased replacement agricultural land within the prescribed period. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2023 09:58:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447023 ITAT Kolkata allowed the assessee's appeal in rectification proceedings under Section 154. The tribunal held that capital gains from sale of agricultural land were exempt from tax as the land did not qualify as a capital asset under Section 2(14). The AO had erroneously denied exemption under Section 54B, noting the assessee mistakenly claimed exemption under Section 54 instead. The tribunal ruled that even if the agricultural land were considered a capital asset, the assessee would still be entitled to exemption under Section 54B having purchased replacement agricultural land within the prescribed period. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 14 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447023