<?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>1966 (8) TMI 19 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7013</link>
    <description>Amounts received for felling trees under a clear-felling forest regime were treated as revenue in character because the arrangement involved removal of recurring growth while the roots, stumps and underlying asset remained intact for regeneration. Since the asset was not sterilised and future growth was contemplated, the receipt was not capital in nature. The amount was therefore assessable to income-tax as a revenue receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Feb 2009 19:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46076" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (8) TMI 19 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7013</link>
      <description>Amounts received for felling trees under a clear-felling forest regime were treated as revenue in character because the arrangement involved removal of recurring growth while the roots, stumps and underlying asset remained intact for regeneration. Since the asset was not sterilised and future growth was contemplated, the receipt was not capital in nature. The amount was therefore assessable to income-tax as a revenue receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Aug 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7013</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>