https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465734 The dominant issue was whether the land sold was "agricultural land" excluded from "capital asset" under s. 2(14) of the IT Act, so as to avoid capital gains tax. The HC held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof: revenue records described the land as "purayidom" (dry land fit for construction), the Village Officer's certificate was inconsistent with those records, and disclosed agricultural income was unsupported by contemporaneous evidence of cultivation (labour, inputs, irrigation, implements). Treating the Tribunal's finding as a pure finding of fact not shown to be perverse, the HC declined interference under s. 260A and upheld assessment of capital gains, dismissing the appeal against the assessee. en-us Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465734 The dominant issue was whether the land sold was "agricultural land" excluded from "capital asset" under s. 2(14) of the IT Act, so as to avoid capital gains tax. The HC held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof: revenue records described the land as "purayidom" (dry land fit for construction), the Village Officer's certificate was inconsistent with those records, and disclosed agricultural income was unsupported by contemporaneous evidence of cultivation (labour, inputs, irrigation, implements). Treating the Tribunal's finding as a pure finding of fact not shown to be perverse, the HC declined interference under s. 260A and upheld assessment of capital gains, dismissing the appeal against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 04 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465734