<?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>1987 (3) TMI 52 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25491</link>
    <description>Expenditure on maintenance of assessee-owned bungalows, and depreciation on them, was treated as falling within the section 40A(5) ceiling framework, and only the appropriate portion of motor car expenditure and depreciation could be included under that provision. The sale of rubber trees was treated, on the cited authority, as not giving rise to capital gains in the circumstances considered. A subsidy from the Rubber Board under a replanting scheme, reimbursing replantation, development, maintenance, upkeep and supervision costs, was characterised as a revenue receipt and therefore taxable income, reinforced by the treatment of similar plantation subsidies and immature-plant expenditure as revenue items.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:43:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64489" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 52 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25491</link>
      <description>Expenditure on maintenance of assessee-owned bungalows, and depreciation on them, was treated as falling within the section 40A(5) ceiling framework, and only the appropriate portion of motor car expenditure and depreciation could be included under that provision. The sale of rubber trees was treated, on the cited authority, as not giving rise to capital gains in the circumstances considered. A subsidy from the Rubber Board under a replanting scheme, reimbursing replantation, development, maintenance, upkeep and supervision costs, was characterised as a revenue receipt and therefore taxable income, reinforced by the treatment of similar plantation subsidies and immature-plant expenditure as revenue items.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>