<?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>1933 (7) TMI 12 - RANGOON HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173320</link>
    <description>The article addresses succession to a Hindu joint family business under Section 26(2), clarifying that legal succession requires takeover and continuous carrying on of the predecessor&#039;s business as a whole; mere acquisition of part of family assets or operating portions of divided undertakings after partition does not satisfy the succession test. Applying this principle, the factual scenario of a partitioned family concern, a member establishing a separate money lending venture, and others conducting only parts of former undertakings lacks the necessary continuity and whole-business succession, thus negating succession under the provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Sep 2015 11:57:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396930" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1933 (7) TMI 12 - RANGOON HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173320</link>
      <description>The article addresses succession to a Hindu joint family business under Section 26(2), clarifying that legal succession requires takeover and continuous carrying on of the predecessor&#039;s business as a whole; mere acquisition of part of family assets or operating portions of divided undertakings after partition does not satisfy the succession test. Applying this principle, the factual scenario of a partitioned family concern, a member establishing a separate money lending venture, and others conducting only parts of former undertakings lacks the necessary continuity and whole-business succession, thus negating succession under the provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jul 1933 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>