<?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>1936 (11) TMI 26 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276063</link>
    <description>For super-tax under the Income-tax Act, income is attributable to a Hindu undivided family only when it belongs to that family in law. A partner&#039;s share in firm profits remained the individual income where the interest was self-acquired and had not been thrown into the common stock; even an assumed ancestral character did not create family income in the absence of a son and resulting coparcenary interest. A wife&#039;s or daughter&#039;s right to maintenance did not divest ownership or convert separate property into joint family property. On these principles, the disputed share income was assessed as the income of the individual partners, not as family income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2018 14:44:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (11) TMI 26 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276063</link>
      <description>For super-tax under the Income-tax Act, income is attributable to a Hindu undivided family only when it belongs to that family in law. A partner&#039;s share in firm profits remained the individual income where the interest was self-acquired and had not been thrown into the common stock; even an assumed ancestral character did not create family income in the absence of a son and resulting coparcenary interest. A wife&#039;s or daughter&#039;s right to maintenance did not divest ownership or convert separate property into joint family property. On these principles, the disputed share income was assessed as the income of the individual partners, not as family income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Nov 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>