<?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>1955 (4) TMI 36 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169448</link>
    <description>Income from forest land is treated as agricultural income where the land is shown to be subjected to sustained forestry operations involving planting, clearing, protection, regeneration, and other human skill and labour; on that basis, the forest receipts were not taxable as non-agricultural income. Separate rice transactions with the Ceylon Government were treated as organised commercial dealings, so the resulting profits were assessable as business income. For rule 23 valuation of paddy received as rent in kind, the correct market basis was Koraput rather than Calcutta. An annual payment charged on the estate for Andhra University was not excluded as trust property or income diverted at source, and the claimed damages deduction was not allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:08:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=382507" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1955 (4) TMI 36 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169448</link>
      <description>Income from forest land is treated as agricultural income where the land is shown to be subjected to sustained forestry operations involving planting, clearing, protection, regeneration, and other human skill and labour; on that basis, the forest receipts were not taxable as non-agricultural income. Separate rice transactions with the Ceylon Government were treated as organised commercial dealings, so the resulting profits were assessable as business income. For rule 23 valuation of paddy received as rent in kind, the correct market basis was Koraput rather than Calcutta. An annual payment charged on the estate for Andhra University was not excluded as trust property or income diverted at source, and the claimed damages deduction was not allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 1955 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>