<?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>1957 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192919</link>
    <description>The Bombay High Court, in a case concerning the inclusion of Rs. 18,000 in the income of a Hindu undivided family, determined that the remuneration received by the karta was rightfully considered as income of the family rather than the individual. The court emphasized the lack of evidence of individual services rendered by the karta to the partnership, concluding that the remuneration was for internal adjustments among partners. Relying on legal precedents and the partnership deed provisions, the court upheld the inclusion of the sum in the family&#039;s total income, ruling in favor of the Commissioner and holding the assessee liable for costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jul 2017 18:57:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=478923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1957 (9) TMI 70 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192919</link>
      <description>The Bombay High Court, in a case concerning the inclusion of Rs. 18,000 in the income of a Hindu undivided family, determined that the remuneration received by the karta was rightfully considered as income of the family rather than the individual. The court emphasized the lack of evidence of individual services rendered by the karta to the partnership, concluding that the remuneration was for internal adjustments among partners. Relying on legal precedents and the partnership deed provisions, the court upheld the inclusion of the sum in the family&#039;s total income, ruling in favor of the Commissioner and holding the assessee liable for costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Sep 1957 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192919</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>