Assessee-company engaged in commercial and agricultural activities purchased land in 2005 and sold the same in 2008. It claimed the land to be agricultural and not liable to capital gains tax. Assessing Officer treated the land as non-agricultural. Tribunal upheld taxability disregarding revenue records. On appeal the Court held that   reasoning given by Tribunal was based on its subjective perception of facts and assumptions and, in disregarding revenue records showing land as agricultural, Appellate Authority and Tribunal had substituted their own views by relying on entries in guideline values issued by Registration Department. Further, survey numbers classified as Government waste land were not related to the subject land and the guideline values issued by the Registration Department were only for the purpose of stamp duty valuation. It was also noted that for classification of land, records and registers maintained by the Revenue Department would prevail over other records. Furthermore, when classification of land is exclusive prerogative of the State under the Constitution of India, a Central Act cannot transgress into the domain of State by providing a different definition of ‘agricultural land’ for the purpose of collecting income tax Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in law in ignoring the report of the Village Administrative Officer, District Valuation Officer and photographs indicating casuarina plantation on the land, as well as purchase and sale deeds and agricultural income disclosed by the appellant in its book. Interpretation of the Tribunal was contrary to facts as well as to the Constitution and therefore, land in question was to be treated as ‘agricultural land’ and not liable to capital gains tax. (AY. 2008-09)