<?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>1941 (4) TMI 16 - High Court Of Patna</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193374</link>
    <description>The Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1938 was examined against the constitutional definition of agricultural income and the Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1793. The Court treated any overlap with the constitutional definition as at most confined to particular classes of income and held that such a possible excess did not invalidate the Act as a whole, applying severability. It further held that the Permanent Settlement secured fixity of jama and tenure, but did not exempt permanently settled estates from a general tax on income; the levy was therefore not a breach of the Settlement. Objections based on prior sanction and reservation were also rejected, and the challenge to the notices and proposed assessment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:31:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=482896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1941 (4) TMI 16 - High Court Of Patna</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193374</link>
      <description>The Bihar Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1938 was examined against the constitutional definition of agricultural income and the Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1793. The Court treated any overlap with the constitutional definition as at most confined to particular classes of income and held that such a possible excess did not invalidate the Act as a whole, applying severability. It further held that the Permanent Settlement secured fixity of jama and tenure, but did not exempt permanently settled estates from a general tax on income; the levy was therefore not a breach of the Settlement. Objections based on prior sanction and reservation were also rejected, and the challenge to the notices and proposed assessment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193374</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>