<?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>1971 (10) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39968</link>
    <description>A composite tea estate operating as a single unit, with one factory and common accounts, was held to be assessable on the basis of the Central Income-tax Officer&#039;s computation for the estate as a whole. The State Agricultural Income-tax Officer could not separately recompute the Madras portion by isolating acreage and yield, because the statutory scheme under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act and rules 7 and 8 did not clearly authorise that departure. Rule 7 was directed to tea grown and manufactured in Madras, which was not the position here, and the absence of separate accounting for the Madras portion left no sufficient basis to recast the assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 13:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (10) TMI 34 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39968</link>
      <description>A composite tea estate operating as a single unit, with one factory and common accounts, was held to be assessable on the basis of the Central Income-tax Officer&#039;s computation for the estate as a whole. The State Agricultural Income-tax Officer could not separately recompute the Madras portion by isolating acreage and yield, because the statutory scheme under the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act and rules 7 and 8 did not clearly authorise that departure. Rule 7 was directed to tea grown and manufactured in Madras, which was not the position here, and the absence of separate accounting for the Madras portion left no sufficient basis to recast the assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39968</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>