<?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>1967 (11) TMI 28 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7415</link>
    <description>Section 29 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was discussed as a machinery provision for assessment after partition, not as a source of fresh tax liability where a Hindu undivided family had already been partitioned by metes and bounds before the relevant accounting year. The majority view recorded that the statutory fiction in section 29(3) could not be extended to create a taxable Hindu undivided family in circumstances where none existed, and that notices issued against the petitioner as manager were without jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion stated that section 29 could continue to treat the family as a Hindu undivided family until partition was recognised under the section.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46465" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (11) TMI 28 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7415</link>
      <description>Section 29 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950 was discussed as a machinery provision for assessment after partition, not as a source of fresh tax liability where a Hindu undivided family had already been partitioned by metes and bounds before the relevant accounting year. The majority view recorded that the statutory fiction in section 29(3) could not be extended to create a taxable Hindu undivided family in circumstances where none existed, and that notices issued against the petitioner as manager were without jurisdiction. A dissenting opinion stated that section 29 could continue to treat the family as a Hindu undivided family until partition was recognised under the section.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7415</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>