<?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>1964 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7345</link>
    <description>Proceeds from the sale of dead and windfallen trees removed from a coffee estate were capital receipts because the trees had no further growth potential and their removal exhausted the asset without leaving a continuing source of income. The Court distinguished this from cases where cutting leaves stumps capable of regeneration, in which the receipt may be revenue in nature. On that basis, the amount was not taxable as revenue income and was treated as a capital receipt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7345</link>
      <description>Proceeds from the sale of dead and windfallen trees removed from a coffee estate were capital receipts because the trees had no further growth potential and their removal exhausted the asset without leaving a continuing source of income. The Court distinguished this from cases where cutting leaves stumps capable of regeneration, in which the receipt may be revenue in nature. On that basis, the amount was not taxable as revenue income and was treated as a capital receipt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>