<?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>1997 (8) TMI 21 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15945</link>
    <description>Section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act is described as a wider residuary deduction for expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the land, while section 5(k) is confined to interest on borrowed capital actually spent on the land and remains subject to the second proviso&#039;s monetary ceiling. The text notes that application of the proviso depends on findings as to the genuineness of the borrowing, the gross agricultural income, and the correct computation under the statutory scheme. It also records that a rubber-yield addition was assessed by reference to past yield trends and the general productivity of older trees, with no basis found for interference on those facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:13:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (8) TMI 21 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15945</link>
      <description>Section 5(e) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act is described as a wider residuary deduction for expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the land, while section 5(k) is confined to interest on borrowed capital actually spent on the land and remains subject to the second proviso&#039;s monetary ceiling. The text notes that application of the proviso depends on findings as to the genuineness of the borrowing, the gross agricultural income, and the correct computation under the statutory scheme. It also records that a rubber-yield addition was assessed by reference to past yield trends and the general productivity of older trees, with no basis found for interference on those facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15945</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>