<?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 79 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12782</link>
    <description>Interest on borrowings used for constructing roads, revetments, fencing, boundaries and irrigation works, and for purchasing agricultural machinery and equipment, was treated as deductible under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The provision was described as a wide residual deduction clause covering expenditure reasonably connected with the holding and use of agricultural land, not merely sums directly incurred to earn income. Amounts applied to agricultural improvements and allied operations were held to have a direct nexus with the land and its agricultural use, making the narrower approach of confining the claim to section 5(k) erroneous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 10:24:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 79 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12782</link>
      <description>Interest on borrowings used for constructing roads, revetments, fencing, boundaries and irrigation works, and for purchasing agricultural machinery and equipment, was treated as deductible under section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The provision was described as a wide residual deduction clause covering expenditure reasonably connected with the holding and use of agricultural land, not merely sums directly incurred to earn income. Amounts applied to agricultural improvements and allied operations were held to have a direct nexus with the land and its agricultural use, making the narrower approach of confining the claim to section 5(k) erroneous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>