<?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>1924 (7) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277446</link>
    <description>A lump-sum salami received on granting a 999-year mining lease was treated as capital receipt for parting with a substantial leasehold interest, so it was not chargeable to income-tax; recurring royalties under the same leases were held to be taxable income because they were periodic returns from extraction. Maintenance annuities charged under a will were not deductible from assessable income where the record did not show what part of the burden fell on taxable income rather than agricultural income. For super-tax, the income of an impartible estate was assessable in the hands of the holder individually, not as the income of a Hindu undivided family, because coparcenary rights in the income did not arise during the holder&#039;s lifetime.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1924 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:30:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545458" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1924 (7) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277446</link>
      <description>A lump-sum salami received on granting a 999-year mining lease was treated as capital receipt for parting with a substantial leasehold interest, so it was not chargeable to income-tax; recurring royalties under the same leases were held to be taxable income because they were periodic returns from extraction. Maintenance annuities charged under a will were not deductible from assessable income where the record did not show what part of the burden fell on taxable income rather than agricultural income. For super-tax, the income of an impartible estate was assessable in the hands of the holder individually, not as the income of a Hindu undivided family, because coparcenary rights in the income did not arise during the holder&#039;s lifetime.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1924 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>