<?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>2004 (5) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11002</link>
    <description>Income from a nursery is not agricultural income unless there is proof of primary agricultural operations on land, such as cultivation of soil through tilling, sowing or planting; growing ornamental and decorative plants in pots, polythene bags, or on a terrace or concrete surface was insufficient, so the income was held not exempt. A CBDT monetary-limit instruction was treated as an internal litigation guideline and not a restriction on the statutory right of departmental appeal under section 253(2); accordingly, the appeal was maintainable and the objection based on the limit failed. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld and the remand for fresh inquiry remained in place.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50021" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (5) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11002</link>
      <description>Income from a nursery is not agricultural income unless there is proof of primary agricultural operations on land, such as cultivation of soil through tilling, sowing or planting; growing ornamental and decorative plants in pots, polythene bags, or on a terrace or concrete surface was insufficient, so the income was held not exempt. A CBDT monetary-limit instruction was treated as an internal litigation guideline and not a restriction on the statutory right of departmental appeal under section 253(2); accordingly, the appeal was maintainable and the objection based on the limit failed. The Tribunal&#039;s decision was upheld and the remand for fresh inquiry remained in place.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11002</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>