<?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>1976 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38788</link>
    <description>Cashew trees are treated as fruit-bearing trees for purposes of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, because the statute defines &quot;tope&quot; as land containing large groups of fruit trees or valuable timber trees. The Court rejected the Tribunal&#039;s method of classifying trees by comparing the commercial value of the nut and the fruit, holding that the Act draws no distinction between fruit-bearing and nut-bearing trees. Once a cashew tree admittedly bears fruit, it cannot be excluded from the definition of &quot;tope&quot; merely because the nut is more valuable than the fruit, and land on which such trees grow remains assessable on that basis.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:52:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77334" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (9) TMI 32 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38788</link>
      <description>Cashew trees are treated as fruit-bearing trees for purposes of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, because the statute defines &quot;tope&quot; as land containing large groups of fruit trees or valuable timber trees. The Court rejected the Tribunal&#039;s method of classifying trees by comparing the commercial value of the nut and the fruit, holding that the Act draws no distinction between fruit-bearing and nut-bearing trees. Once a cashew tree admittedly bears fruit, it cannot be excluded from the definition of &quot;tope&quot; merely because the nut is more valuable than the fruit, and land on which such trees grow remains assessable on that basis.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38788</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>