2015 (10) TMI 1459

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Revenue and Shri D.E. Robinson, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR on behalf of the Assessee submitted that he did not wish to press the Cross objection filed by the Assessee. Consequently, the Cross objection filed by the Assessee stands dismissed as not pressed. 3. In respect of the Revenue's appeal, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the appeal was against the action of ld. CIT(A) in allowing the claim of the Assessee u/s 54B of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1 crore as against Rs. 27 lacs disallowed by the AO. It was also the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had upheld the claim of the Assessee that the land sold by the Assessee was an agricultural land. It was the submissio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the submission that though this evidence was produced before the AO, he refused to consider the same and the ld. CIT(A) had considered the evidences alongwith the Affidavits filed to hold that the land sold was an agricultural land. It was the further submission that as per the purchase documents in respect of the land purchased by the Assessee from Shri Metri by paying an amount of Rs. 1 crore, the property was registered at Rs. 27 lacs as the guideline value fixed by the Government in respect of the said land was only Rs. 27 lacs. It was the submission that the ld. CIT(A) had rightly allowed the Assessee the claim of deduction u/s 54B of the Act. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the land records, more specific....