<?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>1969 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7598</link>
    <description>Section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only to a truly impartible estate, because the deeming fiction treats the holder as individual owner of the properties comprised in such an estate. On the facts described, the original grant was made with sharers, family branches had divided the estate repeatedly, and those divisions were recognised by sovereign authority; the historical record therefore showed the saranjam to be partible from inception and by family arrangement and custom. The non-recognition of one adoption did not alter that character, and the need for sovereign sanction did not change the essential nature of the partitions. The income was accordingly not assessable as individual income under section 9(4) and remained assessable as Hindu undivided family income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (6) TMI 5 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7598</link>
      <description>Section 9(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies only to a truly impartible estate, because the deeming fiction treats the holder as individual owner of the properties comprised in such an estate. On the facts described, the original grant was made with sharers, family branches had divided the estate repeatedly, and those divisions were recognised by sovereign authority; the historical record therefore showed the saranjam to be partible from inception and by family arrangement and custom. The non-recognition of one adoption did not alter that character, and the need for sovereign sanction did not change the essential nature of the partitions. The income was accordingly not assessable as individual income under section 9(4) and remained assessable as Hindu undivided family income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7598</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>