https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39894 In computing agricultural income under section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessing authority was not confined to the expense figures stated in the return. The provision required a computation of the expenses actually incurred in raising and marketing the crop and in maintaining or hiring implements and cattle, and Rule 13 only supplied ordinary principles for that determination. The authority could therefore estimate a higher cultivation expense where the facts showed that the actual yield was higher than the returned yield. The return statement was not binding, and the expense deduction could be increased on the material found. en-us Fri, 30 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Dec 2016 16:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39894 In computing agricultural income under section 6(2)(b) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1948, the assessing authority was not confined to the expense figures stated in the return. The provision required a computation of the expenses actually incurred in raising and marketing the crop and in maintaining or hiring implements and cattle, and Rule 13 only supplied ordinary principles for that determination. The authority could therefore estimate a higher cultivation expense where the facts showed that the actual yield was higher than the returned yield. The return statement was not binding, and the expense deduction could be increased on the material found. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 30 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39894