<?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>1970 (12) TMI 25 - ORISSA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8298</link>
    <description>Income from property allotted under a genuine partition by metes and bounds was not taxable in the parent&#039;s hands under section 11(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947, because the minor sons had separate allotments, separate assessment, and possession of their own lands; joint residence, common mess, or joint cultivation did not make them beneficiaries. The partition deed of 1954 was treated as real, not a sham, on the strength of the registered deed and the surrounding evidence of separate enjoyment and rent payment. The objection to inclusion of the mother&#039;s income was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, so the reference on that point was incompetent.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47342" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1970 (12) TMI 25 - ORISSA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8298</link>
      <description>Income from property allotted under a genuine partition by metes and bounds was not taxable in the parent&#039;s hands under section 11(1) of the Orissa Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1947, because the minor sons had separate allotments, separate assessment, and possession of their own lands; joint residence, common mess, or joint cultivation did not make them beneficiaries. The partition deed of 1954 was treated as real, not a sham, on the strength of the registered deed and the surrounding evidence of separate enjoyment and rent payment. The objection to inclusion of the mother&#039;s income was raised for the first time before the Tribunal, so the reference on that point was incompetent.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 1970 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>