<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1988 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56323</link>
    <description>For capital gains purposes, agricultural character of land depends on a balanced appraisal of the full factual matrix, not any single factor such as municipal proximity or sale consideration. Revenue records showing agricultural classification, payment of land revenue, evidence of cultivation and grass sales, later plantation activity, and absence of any conversion to non-agricultural use supported retention of agricultural character up to the transfer date. On those facts, the surplus on sale was treated as not chargeable to capital gains. A dissenting view held that the revenue presumption was rebutted because no real agricultural operations were carried on for several years before sale and the land had become non-agricultural by transfer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 03:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=94785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 57 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56323</link>
      <description>For capital gains purposes, agricultural character of land depends on a balanced appraisal of the full factual matrix, not any single factor such as municipal proximity or sale consideration. Revenue records showing agricultural classification, payment of land revenue, evidence of cultivation and grass sales, later plantation activity, and absence of any conversion to non-agricultural use supported retention of agricultural character up to the transfer date. On those facts, the surplus on sale was treated as not chargeable to capital gains. A dissenting view held that the revenue presumption was rebutted because no real agricultural operations were carried on for several years before sale and the land had become non-agricultural by transfer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56323</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>