https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200497 Service of a notice under section 34 to the 17-year-old eldest male member of a Hindu undivided family was treated as valid because section 63 was applied by reference to sufficient discretion and actual control, not the Indian Majority Act; the notice was therefore effective. A return filed by him as karta was also held valid where he was in de facto management of the family income and was the only practical person able to make the return. On the same footing, he could represent the family in assessment proceedings, and the assessment proceeded validly against the person actually managing the income. en-us Mon, 10 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Mar 2018 18:43:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200497 Service of a notice under section 34 to the 17-year-old eldest male member of a Hindu undivided family was treated as valid because section 63 was applied by reference to sufficient discretion and actual control, not the Indian Majority Act; the notice was therefore effective. A return filed by him as karta was also held valid where he was in de facto management of the family income and was the only practical person able to make the return. On the same footing, he could represent the family in assessment proceedings, and the assessment proceeded validly against the person actually managing the income. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200497