<?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>1973 (3) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8964</link>
    <description>The court held that the remuneration received by the assessee as a general manager should be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Despite some personal service involved, the income was deemed to belong to the HUF due to the origin of the shares and roles being tied to the family&#039;s investments. Relying on precedents, the court ruled in favor of the department, awarding costs to them. The question was answered in the affirmative.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48003" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (3) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8964</link>
      <description>The court held that the remuneration received by the assessee as a general manager should be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family (HUF). Despite some personal service involved, the income was deemed to belong to the HUF due to the origin of the shares and roles being tied to the family&#039;s investments. Relying on precedents, the court ruled in favor of the department, awarding costs to them. The question was answered in the affirmative.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>