<?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>2011 (2) TMI 531 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206435</link>
    <description>Processing raw peas into pea seeds was treated as a process ordinarily employed by the cultivator within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the substantial question had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s own case. The Court followed that binding view and held that income from the activity constituted agricultural income. The question of law was therefore answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179924" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 531 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206435</link>
      <description>Processing raw peas into pea seeds was treated as a process ordinarily employed by the cultivator within the meaning of Section 2(1A)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the substantial question had already been decided in the assessee&#039;s own case. The Court followed that binding view and held that income from the activity constituted agricultural income. The question of law was therefore answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>