https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67490 The Tribunal concluded that the share income from the firm, the amount of Rs. 2,100, and the income from house property should all be assessed in the hands of the individual, rather than as Hindu Undivided Family income. The Tribunal applied Section 64(2) of the IT Act, determining that even if the income was considered HUF income, it should be assessed in the individual's hands. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of Rs. 2,100 in the individual's income for the assessment year 1982-83 and held that income from the house property acquired from share income should also be assessed as individual income for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:07:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67490 The Tribunal concluded that the share income from the firm, the amount of Rs. 2,100, and the income from house property should all be assessed in the hands of the individual, rather than as Hindu Undivided Family income. The Tribunal applied Section 64(2) of the IT Act, determining that even if the income was considered HUF income, it should be assessed in the individual's hands. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of Rs. 2,100 in the individual's income for the assessment year 1982-83 and held that income from the house property acquired from share income should also be assessed as individual income for the assessment years 1983-84 and 1984-85. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 26 Mar 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67490