<?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 (10) TMI 80 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12213</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to classify the income from the shopping complex as both income from property and income from business activities. The judgment favored the Department, dividing the income accordingly and emphasizing the distinction between property ownership and business activities. The case underscores the significance of analyzing the nature of activities to determine the classification of income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51225" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 80 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12213</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision to classify the income from the shopping complex as both income from property and income from business activities. The judgment favored the Department, dividing the income accordingly and emphasizing the distinction between property ownership and business activities. The case underscores the significance of analyzing the nature of activities to determine the classification of income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>