https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49448 The proviso to section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act was construed as requiring permission of the Board of Revenue before an assessee could vary the chosen method of computation after exercising the option, and the restriction was not limited to a single assessment year. The Board's refusal of permission was upheld because the record showed that relevant practical and revenue considerations were considered, so there was no failure to apply mind. The proviso was also held not to offend article 14, since the Act provided adequate guidance and the discretion was controlled rather than unguided or discriminatory. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49448 The proviso to section 6(1) of the U.P. Agricultural Income-tax Act was construed as requiring permission of the Board of Revenue before an assessee could vary the chosen method of computation after exercising the option, and the restriction was not limited to a single assessment year. The Board's refusal of permission was upheld because the record showed that relevant practical and revenue considerations were considered, so there was no failure to apply mind. The proviso was also held not to offend article 14, since the Act provided adequate guidance and the discretion was controlled rather than unguided or discriminatory. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Sep 1960 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49448