<?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>1989 (10) TMI 48 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23754</link>
    <description>Rubber replanting subsidy was held not to be a revenue receipt and therefore not assessable as income under the Income-tax Act. The analysis applied the Full Bench view that such replantation subsidy cannot be characterised as taxable revenue receipt. On that basis, the substantive taxability issue was resolved in favour of the assessee, and the subsidy was treated as outside the charge to tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Dec 2009 17:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 48 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23754</link>
      <description>Rubber replanting subsidy was held not to be a revenue receipt and therefore not assessable as income under the Income-tax Act. The analysis applied the Full Bench view that such replantation subsidy cannot be characterised as taxable revenue receipt. On that basis, the substantive taxability issue was resolved in favour of the assessee, and the subsidy was treated as outside the charge to tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>