<?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 (4) TMI 78 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192718</link>
    <description>Agricultural income-tax under the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 could not be levied for income earned in 1952-53 because the Act came into force only on 15 July 1953 and its definitions left no assessment year or corresponding previous year covering that broken period. The court treated the charging provision as confined to the statute&#039;s express temporal scheme and noted that no special machinery existed to tax a period outside those definitions. It also held that the additional proposed questions on status, deductions, and notice validity were not properly referable, as the status point was factual and the others lacked a sufficient factual foundation to raise questions of law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jun 2017 17:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=472204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 78 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192718</link>
      <description>Agricultural income-tax under the Bhopal State Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1953 could not be levied for income earned in 1952-53 because the Act came into force only on 15 July 1953 and its definitions left no assessment year or corresponding previous year covering that broken period. The court treated the charging provision as confined to the statute&#039;s express temporal scheme and noted that no special machinery existed to tax a period outside those definitions. It also held that the additional proposed questions on status, deductions, and notice validity were not properly referable, as the status point was factual and the others lacked a sufficient factual foundation to raise questions of law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>