<?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>1960 (11) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186657</link>
    <description>Expenditure on the upkeep of immature tea and coffee plants in an existing plantation was treated as revenue expenditure and allowed as cultivation expense under section 5 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The provision covering cultivation expenses was read to include maintenance of replanted or immature trees until they came to bearing, because the plantation was viewed as the crop from which agricultural income was derived. The proviso dealing with limited replanting deduction supported the view that such expenditure was not capital in nature. The disputed upkeep cost was therefore deductible and not excluded as capital expenditure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:27:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=442861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 125 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186657</link>
      <description>Expenditure on the upkeep of immature tea and coffee plants in an existing plantation was treated as revenue expenditure and allowed as cultivation expense under section 5 of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act. The provision covering cultivation expenses was read to include maintenance of replanted or immature trees until they came to bearing, because the plantation was viewed as the crop from which agricultural income was derived. The proviso dealing with limited replanting deduction supported the view that such expenditure was not capital in nature. The disputed upkeep cost was therefore deductible and not excluded as capital expenditure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>