<?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>2019 (7) TMI 82 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382386</link>
    <description>Hybrid seed cultivation was treated as agricultural activity because the production involved sowing on land and carrying out agricultural operations with human skill and scientific methods; the Tribunal followed the binding High Court view that seed production does not lose its agricultural character merely because it is commercial. On that basis, the income was regarded as exempt under section 10(1). The Tribunal also rejected assessment of the entire gross receipts from the activity, holding that tax must be computed on the actual income or loss arising from the venture, not on turnover as such. The relief granted by the first appellate authority was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Jun 2019 17:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=577317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 82 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382386</link>
      <description>Hybrid seed cultivation was treated as agricultural activity because the production involved sowing on land and carrying out agricultural operations with human skill and scientific methods; the Tribunal followed the binding High Court view that seed production does not lose its agricultural character merely because it is commercial. On that basis, the income was regarded as exempt under section 10(1). The Tribunal also rejected assessment of the entire gross receipts from the activity, holding that tax must be computed on the actual income or loss arising from the venture, not on turnover as such. The relief granted by the first appellate authority was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=382386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>