https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37227 Agricultural income had to be computed on the actual income derived and received during the previous year, not by apportioning it across accounting years, so the market value of sugarcane crushed in that year plus other agricultural income and only the permitted deductions was the correct basis. The disputed expenditure was allowable where it fell within the statutory allowance for agricultural expenditure, and the agricultural income-tax authority could not reopen the common-charge treatment already accepted in the income-tax assessment. Depreciation had to be worked out on actual cost, because the Act did not authorise a notional written down value based on hypothetical prior-year depreciation. The interpretation was strict and against implied retrospective fictions. en-us Sat, 18 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Mar 2010 15:28:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37227 Agricultural income had to be computed on the actual income derived and received during the previous year, not by apportioning it across accounting years, so the market value of sugarcane crushed in that year plus other agricultural income and only the permitted deductions was the correct basis. The disputed expenditure was allowable where it fell within the statutory allowance for agricultural expenditure, and the agricultural income-tax authority could not reopen the common-charge treatment already accepted in the income-tax assessment. Depreciation had to be worked out on actual cost, because the Act did not authorise a notional written down value based on hypothetical prior-year depreciation. The interpretation was strict and against implied retrospective fictions. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 18 Nov 1978 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37227