<?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>1990 (7) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64944</link>
    <description>Where the tax treatment depended on whether the estate belonged to an individual or a Hindu undivided family, prior Tribunal findings that the bigger HUF continued could not be disregarded at the appellate stage without proper hearing. A statement attributed to the karta was not enough to finally resolve the status dispute, especially when the karta had taken a position adverse to the family and other coparceners sought to be heard. The affected members were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before any determination that could alter the family estate&#039;s tax position, so fresh disposal after hearing all coparceners was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 12:53:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103384" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (7) TMI 168 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64944</link>
      <description>Where the tax treatment depended on whether the estate belonged to an individual or a Hindu undivided family, prior Tribunal findings that the bigger HUF continued could not be disregarded at the appellate stage without proper hearing. A statement attributed to the karta was not enough to finally resolve the status dispute, especially when the karta had taken a position adverse to the family and other coparceners sought to be heard. The affected members were entitled to an opportunity of hearing before any determination that could alter the family estate&#039;s tax position, so fresh disposal after hearing all coparceners was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>