<?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 (4) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6478</link>
    <description>Commercial profits credited to a tea company&#039;s profit and loss account and general reserves remained accumulated profits for dividend on liquidation, even though part of the underlying income was treated as agricultural income under the tea apportionment rule. The 60:40 split governed assessment of tea income, but it did not require a further division of commercial reserves once credited in the accounts. By contrast, surplus arising from sale of tea estate land and related revaluation reserves were not generally includible as accumulated profits because land yielding agricultural income was outside capital gains, except to the limited extent actually brought to tax as capital gains.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45561" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 2 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6478</link>
      <description>Commercial profits credited to a tea company&#039;s profit and loss account and general reserves remained accumulated profits for dividend on liquidation, even though part of the underlying income was treated as agricultural income under the tea apportionment rule. The 60:40 split governed assessment of tea income, but it did not require a further division of commercial reserves once credited in the accounts. By contrast, surplus arising from sale of tea estate land and related revaluation reserves were not generally includible as accumulated profits because land yielding agricultural income was outside capital gains, except to the limited extent actually brought to tax as capital gains.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6478</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>