https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153191 The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the assessee to prove that the later concern was separate, because there is no legal presumption that a business carried on in an individual coparcener's name belongs to the Hindu undivided family. The party asserting that an individual business is really a family business must prove that position. As no material showed that family funds or family business was used for the later concern, section 4(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be applied on the assumption that both businesses were the same. The later business was therefore not shown to be HUF business. en-us Fri, 29 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:23:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153191 The Tribunal erred in shifting the burden to the assessee to prove that the later concern was separate, because there is no legal presumption that a business carried on in an individual coparcener's name belongs to the Hindu undivided family. The party asserting that an individual business is really a family business must prove that position. As no material showed that family funds or family business was used for the later concern, section 4(5) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act could not be applied on the assumption that both businesses were the same. The later business was therefore not shown to be HUF business. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Aug 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153191