https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794663 Rural agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits was held to fall outside section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, so the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration could not be brought to tax under section 56(2)(x). The assessee's intended future use of the land for a solar power project, or its classification as fixed assets in the books, did not change its character. The expression "property" in section 56(2)(x) was treated as referring only to immovable property that is a capital asset, and the Revenue did not rebut the factual findings of the first appellate authority. The addition was therefore held unsustainable and the deletion was upheld. en-us Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 08:35:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794663 Rural agricultural land situated beyond the prescribed municipal limits was held to fall outside section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, so the difference between stamp duty value and purchase consideration could not be brought to tax under section 56(2)(x). The assessee's intended future use of the land for a solar power project, or its classification as fixed assets in the books, did not change its character. The expression "property" in section 56(2)(x) was treated as referring only to immovable property that is a capital asset, and the Revenue did not rebut the factual findings of the first appellate authority. The addition was therefore held unsustainable and the deletion was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794663