<?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>1966 (5) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6719</link>
    <description>Managing agency commission and allowance income from Mewar Textile Mills was treated as HUF income rather than the karta&#039;s separate income, because the Tribunal&#039;s findings linked it to the family business. The Court also applied a source-specific approach to the previous year, holding that different sources may carry different previous years and that an established basis continues unless duly altered. It further held that income accrued when the right to receive arose, so sums declared or earned outside British India but later received there were assessable under the charging provision. The findings that the disputed sums were received in British India were supported by evidence and were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 12:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1966 (5) TMI 3 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6719</link>
      <description>Managing agency commission and allowance income from Mewar Textile Mills was treated as HUF income rather than the karta&#039;s separate income, because the Tribunal&#039;s findings linked it to the family business. The Court also applied a source-specific approach to the previous year, holding that different sources may carry different previous years and that an established basis continues unless duly altered. It further held that income accrued when the right to receive arose, so sums declared or earned outside British India but later received there were assessable under the charging provision. The findings that the disputed sums were received in British India were supported by evidence and were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 1966 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>