https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200 The appeal was allowed as the Commissioners' decision to split the holding and classify certain arable lands as "gardens" under Rule 8 was not supported by the facts. The Court found that the nature and intensity of cultivation did not justify the classification of the land as gardens, and the Commissioners' conclusions were not adequately supported by the evidence presented. Therefore, the Court concluded that the splitting of the holding for tax assessment purposes was not legally permissible in this case. en-us Tue, 27 May 1941 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Nov 2018 17:26:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200 The appeal was allowed as the Commissioners' decision to split the holding and classify certain arable lands as "gardens" under Rule 8 was not supported by the facts. The Court found that the nature and intensity of cultivation did not justify the classification of the land as gardens, and the Commissioners' conclusions were not adequately supported by the evidence presented. Therefore, the Court concluded that the splitting of the holding for tax assessment purposes was not legally permissible in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 27 May 1941 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277200