<?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>1997 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12709</link>
    <description>Legal expenses incurred to defend litigation over the proposed sale of a portion of an agricultural estate, where the expenditure was aimed at protecting the estate&#039;s interests, fell within section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Section 5(e) was treated as a residuary provision of wide scope, covering not only expenses directly incurred for earning agricultural income but also those reasonably connected with the holding and use of land for agricultural purposes. Expenses tied to the day-to-day carrying on of the estate and incurred for the purpose of the land were therefore deductible. The allowance of the claim was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 13:37:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51720" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12709</link>
      <description>Legal expenses incurred to defend litigation over the proposed sale of a portion of an agricultural estate, where the expenditure was aimed at protecting the estate&#039;s interests, fell within section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Section 5(e) was treated as a residuary provision of wide scope, covering not only expenses directly incurred for earning agricultural income but also those reasonably connected with the holding and use of land for agricultural purposes. Expenses tied to the day-to-day carrying on of the estate and incurred for the purpose of the land were therefore deductible. The allowance of the claim was upheld in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12709</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>