<?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>1971 (4) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8295</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Hindu undivided family in a case concerning the validity of a partial partition claimed by the family. The Court held that the partial partition was valid, emphasizing that profits could only be ascertained at the end of the accounting year as per the partnership deed. The Court criticized the revenue&#039;s demand for profit determination on a specific date as unreasonable. Additionally, the Court found that the interest paid post partial partition should not have been added back to the firm&#039;s income, and the property purchased by the wife did not belong to the family. The Court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s assessments were incorrect and awarded costs and counsel fees to the assessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1971 (4) TMI 16 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8295</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled in favor of the Hindu undivided family in a case concerning the validity of a partial partition claimed by the family. The Court held that the partial partition was valid, emphasizing that profits could only be ascertained at the end of the accounting year as per the partnership deed. The Court criticized the revenue&#039;s demand for profit determination on a specific date as unreasonable. Additionally, the Court found that the interest paid post partial partition should not have been added back to the firm&#039;s income, and the property purchased by the wife did not belong to the family. The Court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s assessments were incorrect and awarded costs and counsel fees to the assessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 1971 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8295</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>