TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1948, cultivation of a land through hired labourer or through member of ones family - Merely because the assessee was not residing close to the land or was also pursuing some other business would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the land was not used for agricultural purposes by the assessee - in the earlier years, the assessee had declared agricultural income, which was also accepted by the Revenue – thus, the order of the Tribunal is upheld as no question of law arises for consideration – Decided against Revenue. - Tax Appeal No. 269 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 7-4-2014 - Akil Kureshi And Sonia Gokani,JJ. For the Appellant : Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, Advocate ORDER (Per : Honourable Mr. Justice Akil Kureshi) 1. Reven ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t neither of these two conditions would be sufficient to deny benefit under section 10(37) of the Act. In this context, the tribunal referred to the decision of this Court dated 15.4.2013 in Tax Appeal No.355/2013 in which it was held as under : 7. Section 10(37), however, grants exemption from payment of capital gains on transfer of agricultural land under certain circumstances. Section 10(37) reads as under: 10(37) in the case of an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, any income chargeable under the head Capital gains arising from the transfer of agricultural land, where ( i) such land is situate in any area referred to in item (a) or item (b) of subclause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (ii) such la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee. The concept of personal cultivation as accepted in agricultural land tenancy laws also recognizes, as can be seen from the statutory provisions contained in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cultivation of a land through hired labourer or through member of ones family. Merely because the assessee was not residing close to the land or was also pursuing some other business would not by itself be sufficient to hold that the land was not used for agricultural purposes by the assessee. The Tribunal recorded that in the earlier years, the assessee had declared agricultural income, which was also accepted by the Revenue. 10. Under the circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal correctly ruled in favour of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
