1. It is observed that, the assessee (appellant)’s pleadings for supporting the claim for tax exemption under section 54B have been rejected mainly on, besides others, the ground that “we are not inclined to think that the finding of fact rendered under section 54B is perverse”. The finding is that the subject farm land had not been proved to meet with requirement of user for ‘agricultural purposes’.
On this aspect, attention may be drawn to the expert commentary in Palkhivala’s leading text book on income-tax and case law cited- ref. page 109 of the ninth edition, vol.1; also briefly dealt with in page 127 of published article – 153 Taxman 126 (Mag).
It calls for a special noting, -the controversies with differing hues and shades have been repeatedly taken to courts, but judicial views are mutually varying, hence left with no scope for a definitive conclusion.
2. As to the dispute stemmed on the concept of ‘appurtenant’ as embodied in the enactment, in the absence of any special definition n the Act, one has to necessarily look for guidance in the material galore in public domain
@links e.g. –
>What is APPURTENANCE? – Black’s Law Dictionary ;
>appurtenances legal definition of appurtenances. appurtenances …
So much so, litigation of this kind can only be expected to go on and on, forever.
Even so, as always, over to the enlightened readers, at best for a further academic study.