<?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>1992 (7) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20987</link>
    <description>Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, deductions are confined to the statutory heads in section 5. Entertainment expenditure, marriage presents, and the non-agricultural component of motor car and advertisement expenses were not fully allowable because they did not fall within the permitted heads, so the disallowance was upheld. Donation to INTUC was also disallowed for lack of any direct or indirect nexus with agricultural operations or agricultural income. Rubber subsidy was treated as an allowable deduction in line with earlier authority, so that claim was allowed. A claim for doubtful debts failed because agricultural income is chargeable on production, receipt and derivation from the land, and actual sale realisation is not a condition precedent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:57:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=59986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20987</link>
      <description>Under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, deductions are confined to the statutory heads in section 5. Entertainment expenditure, marriage presents, and the non-agricultural component of motor car and advertisement expenses were not fully allowable because they did not fall within the permitted heads, so the disallowance was upheld. Donation to INTUC was also disallowed for lack of any direct or indirect nexus with agricultural operations or agricultural income. Rubber subsidy was treated as an allowable deduction in line with earlier authority, so that claim was allowed. A claim for doubtful debts failed because agricultural income is chargeable on production, receipt and derivation from the land, and actual sale realisation is not a condition precedent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>