<?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 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9221</link>
    <description>Members of a Hindu undivided family may constitute a genuine partnership in respect of business allotted for separate enjoyment under a partition deed, even if the family is not otherwise completely disrupted. Registration cannot be refused where the instruments, bank dealings, capital contributions, and accounts show the firm was real and not a pretence, and minor discrepancies do not negate that effect. On the same footing, the business income could not continue to be assessed in HUF status once the partition of the business was accepted on the facts. An unequal partition was not treated as invalid, and the absence of a partition-recording order did not sustain the HUF assessment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48245" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (3) TMI 35 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9221</link>
      <description>Members of a Hindu undivided family may constitute a genuine partnership in respect of business allotted for separate enjoyment under a partition deed, even if the family is not otherwise completely disrupted. Registration cannot be refused where the instruments, bank dealings, capital contributions, and accounts show the firm was real and not a pretence, and minor discrepancies do not negate that effect. On the same footing, the business income could not continue to be assessed in HUF status once the partition of the business was accepted on the facts. An unequal partition was not treated as invalid, and the absence of a partition-recording order did not sustain the HUF assessment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9221</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>