<?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>1972 (1) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8590</link>
    <description>Under the clubbing provisions corresponding to section 16(3) of the 1922 Act and section 64 of the 1961 Act, a spouse&#039;s share of loss from a partnership firm may be treated as the assessee&#039;s own loss for set-off purposes. The provision was read as an anti-avoidance rule aimed at preventing tax reduction through family admissions into firms, and a binding departmental circular was taken to support the equitable construction that the spouse&#039;s loss should be included in the assessee&#039;s computation. The circular was regarded as binding on income-tax authorities, and the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court was not accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 16:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (1) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8590</link>
      <description>Under the clubbing provisions corresponding to section 16(3) of the 1922 Act and section 64 of the 1961 Act, a spouse&#039;s share of loss from a partnership firm may be treated as the assessee&#039;s own loss for set-off purposes. The provision was read as an anti-avoidance rule aimed at preventing tax reduction through family admissions into firms, and a binding departmental circular was taken to support the equitable construction that the spouse&#039;s loss should be included in the assessee&#039;s computation. The circular was regarded as binding on income-tax authorities, and the contrary view of the Gujarat High Court was not accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>