<?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>1960 (11) TMI 1 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7348</link>
    <description>Agricultural income from family plantations was said to depend on whether a genuine prior partition had taken place, because a real partition by status or by division of property would require the income allotted to each member to be assessed separately rather than clubbed as Hindu undivided family income. A document described as a settlement deed could not be treated as decisive by its label alone; its true character depended on the substance and surrounding material. The finding that the 1951 partition was sham was held unsustainable because relevant evidence, including separate possession and recognition by tax authorities, had not been properly considered, and the question of ancestral character and actual partition required fresh reconsideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 09:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (11) TMI 1 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7348</link>
      <description>Agricultural income from family plantations was said to depend on whether a genuine prior partition had taken place, because a real partition by status or by division of property would require the income allotted to each member to be assessed separately rather than clubbed as Hindu undivided family income. A document described as a settlement deed could not be treated as decisive by its label alone; its true character depended on the substance and surrounding material. The finding that the 1951 partition was sham was held unsustainable because relevant evidence, including separate possession and recognition by tax authorities, had not been properly considered, and the question of ancestral character and actual partition required fresh reconsideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Nov 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>