<?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>1968 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7291</link>
    <description>A general direction to give effect to consequential modifications after registration of a firm does not, by itself, authorise inclusion of the wife&#039;s and minor sons&#039; income in the assessee&#039;s assessment. The article explains that such inclusion is not a necessary consequence of registration, because liability under the relevant clubbing provision may arise whether the firm is registered or unregistered, even though the tax effect may differ. Accordingly, broad language in the Tribunal&#039;s order could not be treated as permitting reopening of the assessment on that basis, and the Commissioner&#039;s contrary reading was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7291</link>
      <description>A general direction to give effect to consequential modifications after registration of a firm does not, by itself, authorise inclusion of the wife&#039;s and minor sons&#039; income in the assessee&#039;s assessment. The article explains that such inclusion is not a necessary consequence of registration, because liability under the relevant clubbing provision may arise whether the firm is registered or unregistered, even though the tax effect may differ. Accordingly, broad language in the Tribunal&#039;s order could not be treated as permitting reopening of the assessment on that basis, and the Commissioner&#039;s contrary reading was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>