<?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>1985 (7) TMI 10 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26099</link>
    <description>Reassessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act was upheld where notice under section 35 had been received, the assessee failed to file returns for the relevant years, and the full agricultural income was not disclosed. A defect in issuing separate notices for different capacities did not invalidate the proceedings because the assessee had been alerted to the reassessment and the omission was not merely technical. The trust issue was also decided against the assessee: agricultural income from property held under a private religious trust remains taxable unless the property enures for the benefit of the public. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 17:14:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65097" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (7) TMI 10 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26099</link>
      <description>Reassessment under the Agricultural Income-tax Act was upheld where notice under section 35 had been received, the assessee failed to file returns for the relevant years, and the full agricultural income was not disclosed. A defect in issuing separate notices for different capacities did not invalidate the proceedings because the assessee had been alerted to the reassessment and the omission was not merely technical. The trust issue was also decided against the assessee: agricultural income from property held under a private religious trust remains taxable unless the property enures for the benefit of the public. Both referred questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jul 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>