https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66342 An account entry dated 31 March 1963 was treated as evidencing only a division of the family's business investment in a partnership firm and a partial partition of some movable assets, not a clear and unequivocal intention to disrupt the Hindu joint family as a whole. Severance in status depends on whether the document relied on shows an intention to separate from the joint family entirely; on the facts, the family continued to exist. Recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act did not by itself establish total disruption for estate duty purposes, so the lineal descendants' share remained liable to aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. en-us Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:46:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66342 An account entry dated 31 March 1963 was treated as evidencing only a division of the family's business investment in a partnership firm and a partial partition of some movable assets, not a clear and unequivocal intention to disrupt the Hindu joint family as a whole. Severance in status depends on whether the document relied on shows an intention to separate from the joint family entirely; on the facts, the family continued to exist. Recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act did not by itself establish total disruption for estate duty purposes, so the lineal descendants' share remained liable to aggregation under section 34(1)(c) of the Estate Duty Act. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66342