<?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>1986 (1) TMI 180 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67578</link>
    <description>The tribunal determined that the share taken by a male on partition of his family HUF, where his wife was not allotted a share, was held in the capacity of the HUF comprising himself and his wife. They concluded that the deceased held the property as karta of the HUF with his wife, and only 50% of the property passed on his death. The tribunal upheld the Controller&#039;s decision and dismissed the department&#039;s appeal, with agreement from both tribunal members.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 14:08:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106013" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 180 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67578</link>
      <description>The tribunal determined that the share taken by a male on partition of his family HUF, where his wife was not allotted a share, was held in the capacity of the HUF comprising himself and his wife. They concluded that the deceased held the property as karta of the HUF with his wife, and only 50% of the property passed on his death. The tribunal upheld the Controller&#039;s decision and dismissed the department&#039;s appeal, with agreement from both tribunal members.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>