<?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 (11) TMI 68 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21213</link>
    <description>Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is treated as a residuary deduction provision for expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively to earn agricultural income. Explanation 2 is confined to section 5(j) and does not extend to the other deduction clauses in section 5. It also withdraws deduction only for expenditure directly relating to the cultivation, upkeep and maintenance of immature plants, rather than cutting down the entire residuary allowance. On that basis, rent for the estate was allowable, while the interest claim required limited reconsideration because the Tribunal had not identified the precise clause under which it fell.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:34:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60212" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (11) TMI 68 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21213</link>
      <description>Section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 is treated as a residuary deduction provision for expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively to earn agricultural income. Explanation 2 is confined to section 5(j) and does not extend to the other deduction clauses in section 5. It also withdraws deduction only for expenditure directly relating to the cultivation, upkeep and maintenance of immature plants, rather than cutting down the entire residuary allowance. On that basis, rent for the estate was allowable, while the interest claim required limited reconsideration because the Tribunal had not identified the precise clause under which it fell.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21213</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>