On appeal, the High Court, upheld Tribunal’s finding that Assessee is not an agriculturist but a proprietor of Management Institute and there is no evidence to indicate that the land has been put to agricultural use and hence gains on sale of agricultural land treated as taxable gains. Mere categorization of land as Nilam (Paddy land) in revenue records is not sufficient to treat land as agricultural land (I.T. A No 251 of 2015 dt. 11-12-2017) (AY. 2008-2009)
Sreedhar Asok Kumar .v. CIT (2018) 253 Taxman 204 (Ker)(HC).
S. 45:Capital gains –Agricultural land – Mere categorization of land as Nilam (Paddy land) in revenue records is not sufficient to treat land as agricultural land – Land not being used for agricultural purposes assessable as capital gains .[S.2(14)(iii)]