<?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>1986 (7) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26018</link>
    <description>Tax classification of banana, coconut and sugarcane within the substituted definition of &quot;standard acre&quot; under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act was examined against Article 14. Legislatures have wider discretion in selecting the basis, manner and rate of taxation, and may classify, club or exclude crops where the classification is reasonable. The challenge failed because no clear hostile discrimination or unequal treatment of similarly situated persons was established. Bringing cash crops within a higher tax slab supported the legislative object, and changing the tax basis did not itself constitute discrimination. The amended definition and the consequential order were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 12:57:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (7) TMI 48 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26018</link>
      <description>Tax classification of banana, coconut and sugarcane within the substituted definition of &quot;standard acre&quot; under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act was examined against Article 14. Legislatures have wider discretion in selecting the basis, manner and rate of taxation, and may classify, club or exclude crops where the classification is reasonable. The challenge failed because no clear hostile discrimination or unequal treatment of similarly situated persons was established. Bringing cash crops within a higher tax slab supported the legislative object, and changing the tax basis did not itself constitute discrimination. The amended definition and the consequential order were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26018</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>