Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that the land which was sold was situated in a village .  Late collection of tax by the Municipal Corporation or mentioning or recording in the revenue record that the village continued to be a separate entity till May 31, 2011 would not make any material difference to the legal position that the village became part of the larger urban area on and from July 3, 2009. However, the Tribunal returned a finding of fact that at the time of sale, the land in question was situated at village  the population of which was 5,912 which was less than the statutory requirement of 10,000.  Accordingly the profit from sale of the land was not assessable as capital gains.( AY.2011-12)