https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769384 ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming deduction under section 54B, transfer of capital asset being land used for agricultural purposes is required, not necessarily agricultural land per se. The lower authorities erred in denying deduction solely because land was classified as capital asset rather than agricultural land. Since authorities failed to examine 7/12 extract and other documentary evidence to verify agricultural use, matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication. Assessee directed to furnish documents substantiating conditions for section 54B deduction. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. en-us Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Apr 2025 09:14:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769384 ITAT Mumbai held that for claiming deduction under section 54B, transfer of capital asset being land used for agricultural purposes is required, not necessarily agricultural land per se. The lower authorities erred in denying deduction solely because land was classified as capital asset rather than agricultural land. Since authorities failed to examine 7/12 extract and other documentary evidence to verify agricultural use, matter was remanded to AO for fresh adjudication. Assessee directed to furnish documents substantiating conditions for section 54B deduction. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=769384