<?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>1942 (6) TMI 9 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168623</link>
    <description>Section 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regulated assessment consequences where a Hindu family had ceased to exist as a joint unit or had been partitioned; it did not itself prohibit members from entering into a partnership in respect of property that had been validly separated or transferred. The contrary view was incorrect. The record, however, lacked findings on whether the assets were self-acquired, ancestral or joint family property, what rights the father held under the applicable custom, whether an effective partition or transfer occurred, and what arrangement preceded the 12 February 1933 deed. The matter therefore required remittal for fresh factual findings and reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:40:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1942 (6) TMI 9 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168623</link>
      <description>Section 25-A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regulated assessment consequences where a Hindu family had ceased to exist as a joint unit or had been partitioned; it did not itself prohibit members from entering into a partnership in respect of property that had been validly separated or transferred. The contrary view was incorrect. The record, however, lacked findings on whether the assets were self-acquired, ancestral or joint family property, what rights the father held under the applicable custom, whether an effective partition or transfer occurred, and what arrangement preceded the 12 February 1933 deed. The matter therefore required remittal for fresh factual findings and reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 1942 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168623</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>