https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7347 Section 8(1)(a) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 was treated as satisfied on the facts, so the receiver was competent to file the return and represent the coparceners, and the objection to that effect failed. Section 29(1) was said to apply only where the family had earlier been assessed as a Hindu undivided family; because that prerequisite was absent, the revenue could not assess the family as continuing to be undivided despite the claimed disruption of status. The revision therefore succeeded on the second issue, the Tribunal's view on status could not stand, and the matter required reconsideration. en-us Wed, 18 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7347 Section 8(1)(a) of the Madras Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 was treated as satisfied on the facts, so the receiver was competent to file the return and represent the coparceners, and the objection to that effect failed. Section 29(1) was said to apply only where the family had earlier been assessed as a Hindu undivided family; because that prerequisite was absent, the revenue could not assess the family as continuing to be undivided despite the claimed disruption of status. The revision therefore succeeded on the second issue, the Tribunal's view on status could not stand, and the matter required reconsideration. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 18 Sep 1968 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7347