<?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>2008 (2) TMI 859 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171410</link>
    <description>An inclusive definition of &quot;person&quot; under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act is read with the general clauses legislation and can extend to an association of persons or body of individuals, including a joint family where the context permits. Mere co-ownership, however, does not by itself create such an association unless there is a common purpose, joint venture, or shared action. Joint purchasers who acquired land only for convenience were treated as separate persons, while a partition falling within the statutory anti-avoidance period was presumed to be made to defeat the Amendment Act and was ignored absent the prescribed rebuttal procedure. The text also notes that surplus-land scrutiny may require inquiry into the validity of transfers under tenancy law and the status of purchasers as agriculturists.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2015 15:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 859 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171410</link>
      <description>An inclusive definition of &quot;person&quot; under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act is read with the general clauses legislation and can extend to an association of persons or body of individuals, including a joint family where the context permits. Mere co-ownership, however, does not by itself create such an association unless there is a common purpose, joint venture, or shared action. Joint purchasers who acquired land only for convenience were treated as separate persons, while a partition falling within the statutory anti-avoidance period was presumed to be made to defeat the Amendment Act and was ignored absent the prescribed rebuttal procedure. The text also notes that surplus-land scrutiny may require inquiry into the validity of transfers under tenancy law and the status of purchasers as agriculturists.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171410</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>