<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (11) TMI 82 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62418</link>
    <description>An agricultural income-tax assessment made largely on an Inspector&#039;s report, without independent enquiry into ownership, possession and the actual extent of land held by the assessee and family members, was unsustainable. The assessment authority had to verify the real owners, land in possession, and the applicability of the taxing provisions before completing the assessment. The estimated agricultural income also required fresh verification because the yield figures, crop-wise area and produce were not properly checked, and dairy and pisciculture receipts could not be included on the facts as found. The claim for expenditure, including machinery-related and other allowable deductions, likewise needed reconsideration. The matter was remitted for fresh determination on proper enquiry.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 16:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 82 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62418</link>
      <description>An agricultural income-tax assessment made largely on an Inspector&#039;s report, without independent enquiry into ownership, possession and the actual extent of land held by the assessee and family members, was unsustainable. The assessment authority had to verify the real owners, land in possession, and the applicability of the taxing provisions before completing the assessment. The estimated agricultural income also required fresh verification because the yield figures, crop-wise area and produce were not properly checked, and dairy and pisciculture receipts could not be included on the facts as found. The claim for expenditure, including machinery-related and other allowable deductions, likewise needed reconsideration. The matter was remitted for fresh determination on proper enquiry.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62418</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>