<?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>1962 (8) TMI 111 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276854</link>
    <description>Income from milk derived from maintained cows was held not to be agricultural income, because dairy farming does not fall within agriculture for income-tax purposes; the amount was therefore assessable under the Act and the issue went in favour of the Revenue. The Schedule&#039;s expression &quot;brothers only&quot; was construed broadly, with &quot;brother&quot; taken in an inclusive sense to cover the sons and grandsons of brothers, including a brother&#039;s widow, without requiring a surviving original brother; on that construction, the family fell within the statutory category and this issue also went in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2018 15:33:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542640" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (8) TMI 111 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276854</link>
      <description>Income from milk derived from maintained cows was held not to be agricultural income, because dairy farming does not fall within agriculture for income-tax purposes; the amount was therefore assessable under the Act and the issue went in favour of the Revenue. The Schedule&#039;s expression &quot;brothers only&quot; was construed broadly, with &quot;brother&quot; taken in an inclusive sense to cover the sons and grandsons of brothers, including a brother&#039;s widow, without requiring a surviving original brother; on that construction, the family fell within the statutory category and this issue also went in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276854</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>