<?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>1964 (9) TMI 3 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6675</link>
    <description>Common management of agricultural lands and the use of common agents did not, by themselves, create an association of individuals for agricultural income-tax purposes. The settlement deeds were genuine and acted upon, and the records showed separate accounts and statements for each beneficiary, with income and expenses maintained individually. Because there was no material showing that the beneficiaries had associated together or agreed to exploit the lands jointly for their common benefit, the essential element of an association of individuals was absent. The assessments made on that footing could not stand, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (9) TMI 3 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6675</link>
      <description>Common management of agricultural lands and the use of common agents did not, by themselves, create an association of individuals for agricultural income-tax purposes. The settlement deeds were genuine and acted upon, and the records showed separate accounts and statements for each beneficiary, with income and expenses maintained individually. Because there was no material showing that the beneficiaries had associated together or agreed to exploit the lands jointly for their common benefit, the essential element of an association of individuals was absent. The assessments made on that footing could not stand, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>