https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449741 The HC quashed ITAT's order and remanded the matter to AO for fresh assessment regarding whether land sold constitutes capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii). The court clarified that ITAT's direction restricts AO's scope to examining evidence filed by petitioner to determine land's agricultural nature. HC upheld CIT(A)'s finding that actual agricultural operations are not necessary to classify land as agricultural. AO must authenticate petitioner's evidence and conduct enquiry with government authorities before concluding land's true character. The court emphasized that rejection of petitioner's claim cannot be based solely on presumption that land sold within two years of purchase was non-agricultural. en-us Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 29 Aug 2024 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449741 The HC quashed ITAT's order and remanded the matter to AO for fresh assessment regarding whether land sold constitutes capital asset under Section 2(14)(iii). The court clarified that ITAT's direction restricts AO's scope to examining evidence filed by petitioner to determine land's agricultural nature. HC upheld CIT(A)'s finding that actual agricultural operations are not necessary to classify land as agricultural. AO must authenticate petitioner's evidence and conduct enquiry with government authorities before concluding land's true character. The court emphasized that rejection of petitioner's claim cannot be based solely on presumption that land sold within two years of purchase was non-agricultural. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449741