https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277104 The Court criticized a 5 1/2-year delay in referring the matter for assessment, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution. The income from the managing agency was deemed a joint family asset, with Mr. Haridas Purushottam's share considered income of the Hindu undivided family. Analysis of partnership and managing agency agreements supported this conclusion, showing the connection to joint family property. The managing agency was found to be derived from joint family property, leading to the income being treated as a joint family asset. The Court, with judges Sir Leonard Stone, CJ, and Chagla, J, ruled in favor of this treatment. en-us Wed, 11 Sep 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 24 Nov 2018 12:01:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277104 The Court criticized a 5 1/2-year delay in referring the matter for assessment, emphasizing the importance of timely resolution. The income from the managing agency was deemed a joint family asset, with Mr. Haridas Purushottam's share considered income of the Hindu undivided family. Analysis of partnership and managing agency agreements supported this conclusion, showing the connection to joint family property. The managing agency was found to be derived from joint family property, leading to the income being treated as a joint family asset. The Court, with judges Sir Leonard Stone, CJ, and Chagla, J, ruled in favor of this treatment. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 11 Sep 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277104