<?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>2002 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11783</link>
    <description>The court affirmed that the rental income was not classified as business income but rather as &#039;income from other sources&#039; based on the cessation of manufacturing activities and continuous leasing of premises since 1971. The court held that the wealth-tax order classifying assets as commercial did not affect income-tax proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between wealth-tax and income-tax concepts. The appeals were dismissed, and connected petitions were also rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 16 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11783</link>
      <description>The court affirmed that the rental income was not classified as business income but rather as &#039;income from other sources&#039; based on the cessation of manufacturing activities and continuous leasing of premises since 1971. The court held that the wealth-tax order classifying assets as commercial did not affect income-tax proceedings, emphasizing the distinction between wealth-tax and income-tax concepts. The appeals were dismissed, and connected petitions were also rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>