This page tests the claim against the checklist CBDT gave its own officers, shows where the figure sits against what Tribunals have actually done, and prints the working paper for the file. Nothing leaves your browser.
| Per acre | Who, and where | Year | Accepted or estimated |
|---|
Following a Comptroller and Auditor General performance audit which found that officers were allowing agricultural-income exemptions on improper verification, the Board directed its officers to independently verify documentary evidence in three categories.
It also directs officers not to grant the exemption for non-agricultural activity — the sale of fish or milk is named — to characterise rent and revenue claims from agricultural land correctly, and to apply the apportionment rules properly where income is partly agricultural.
The client
This page does not compute tax. There is no partial integration and no slab arithmetic. The one tax figure on it is the exempt claim multiplied by a rate you chose, so that the at-stake line means something.
It cannot tell you a claim is allowable, and it never says so. No per-acre figure anywhere on this page binds the officer looking at your client’s return.
The document list is the department’s own, taken from the three categories in its instruction to its officers. The Board itself says that guidance is indicative and not exhaustive, so holding all ten is not a guarantee either.
It will not compute limitation for a notice, will not tell you whether a notice is valid, will not apportion partly agricultural income, and will not draft a reply.
Your answer
A working paper for the return file, and — while anything is missing — a document-request list addressed to your client. Both on your letterhead, with nothing about this page on them.