<?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>1960 (10) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49516</link>
    <description>A payment received by a shebait as remuneration under a trust deed was held not to be agricultural income merely because it was calculated as a share of trust income from agricultural land. The Court reasoned that the trust income itself may have been agricultural in the trustee&#039;s hands, but the assessee received the amount under a contractual covenant for management, without any beneficial interest in the trust property. Once appropriated as personal remuneration, the receipt lost the character of rent or revenue derived from agricultural land and was taxable. Exemption was therefore unavailable because the payment itself did not retain the required agricultural source character.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 21:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87996" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (10) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49516</link>
      <description>A payment received by a shebait as remuneration under a trust deed was held not to be agricultural income merely because it was calculated as a share of trust income from agricultural land. The Court reasoned that the trust income itself may have been agricultural in the trustee&#039;s hands, but the assessee received the amount under a contractual covenant for management, without any beneficial interest in the trust property. Once appropriated as personal remuneration, the receipt lost the character of rent or revenue derived from agricultural land and was taxable. Exemption was therefore unavailable because the payment itself did not retain the required agricultural source character.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49516</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>