<?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>1991 (4) TMI 90 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22221</link>
    <description>Expenditure on salaries and wages is deductible only to the extent it is shown, with material evidence, to relate wholly and exclusively to agricultural activity. Where the assessee fails to produce attendance records, expenditure details or other proof of exclusive deployment, and the common establishment serves mixed agricultural and non-agricultural purposes, the authorities may reasonably apportion the expense between the two activities. On the facts described, the revisional court found no perversity in the estimation, held that the burden of proof had not been discharged, and sustained the restriction of deduction to the agricultural component.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 90 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22221</link>
      <description>Expenditure on salaries and wages is deductible only to the extent it is shown, with material evidence, to relate wholly and exclusively to agricultural activity. Where the assessee fails to produce attendance records, expenditure details or other proof of exclusive deployment, and the common establishment serves mixed agricultural and non-agricultural purposes, the authorities may reasonably apportion the expense between the two activities. On the facts described, the revisional court found no perversity in the estimation, held that the burden of proof had not been discharged, and sustained the restriction of deduction to the agricultural component.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>