<?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>1998 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15220</link>
    <description>Coffee and tea bushes are not treated as &quot;growing crops&quot; for exemption purposes under the Wealth-tax Act, except for the plucked tea leaves and coffee berries recognised in earlier precedent, so the exemption was not available on that basis. In computing a partner&#039;s individual net wealth, however, a share in agricultural land held through a firm can qualify for exemption, and the firm&#039;s assets exempt under section 5 are not automatically denied to the partner where the individual claim is otherwise maintainable. The result was mixed: the crop exemption point was decided against the assessee, while the partner&#039;s exemption claim was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 17:32:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (1) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15220</link>
      <description>Coffee and tea bushes are not treated as &quot;growing crops&quot; for exemption purposes under the Wealth-tax Act, except for the plucked tea leaves and coffee berries recognised in earlier precedent, so the exemption was not available on that basis. In computing a partner&#039;s individual net wealth, however, a share in agricultural land held through a firm can qualify for exemption, and the firm&#039;s assets exempt under section 5 are not automatically denied to the partner where the individual claim is otherwise maintainable. The result was mixed: the crop exemption point was decided against the assessee, while the partner&#039;s exemption claim was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15220</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>