<?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>1980 (1) TMI 12 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36007</link>
    <description>Expenditure is deductible under section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act only if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income and bears a proximate, direct nexus with that income. Legal expenses incurred to prevent encroachment on uncultivated forest lands were not deductible because the land yielded no agricultural income and the expense merely protected title to property. By contrast, expenses for evicting a tenant from a shop building and for challenging a toll levy were deductible because they directly protected the income-producing estate and sought to preserve or augment agricultural income. The claim failed on the first item but succeeded on the second.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:45:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74553" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 12 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36007</link>
      <description>Expenditure is deductible under section 5(j) of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act only if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for deriving agricultural income and bears a proximate, direct nexus with that income. Legal expenses incurred to prevent encroachment on uncultivated forest lands were not deductible because the land yielded no agricultural income and the expense merely protected title to property. By contrast, expenses for evicting a tenant from a shop building and for challenging a toll levy were deductible because they directly protected the income-producing estate and sought to preserve or augment agricultural income. The claim failed on the first item but succeeded on the second.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>