<?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>1941 (5) TMI 13 - THE HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200</link>
    <description>Land can be treated as a garden for the sale of produce under rule 8 of Schedule B only where it forms a distinct and reasonably permanent unit of horticultural cultivation. A single mixed farm worked as one unit could not be split notionally into scattered garden areas for separate assessment, because there was no real geographical or operational separation. Arable land cultivated by ordinary agricultural methods also did not qualify merely because it produced crops or fruit commonly sold from farms; the character and intensity of cultivation, not the nature of the produce alone, was decisive. The assessment treating part of the holding as a garden was therefore unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:26:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=544450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1941 (5) TMI 13 - THE HOUSE OF LORDS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200</link>
      <description>Land can be treated as a garden for the sale of produce under rule 8 of Schedule B only where it forms a distinct and reasonably permanent unit of horticultural cultivation. A single mixed farm worked as one unit could not be split notionally into scattered garden areas for separate assessment, because there was no real geographical or operational separation. Arable land cultivated by ordinary agricultural methods also did not qualify merely because it produced crops or fruit commonly sold from farms; the character and intensity of cultivation, not the nature of the produce alone, was decisive. The assessment treating part of the holding as a garden was therefore unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 May 1941 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>