<?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>1951 (6) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277348</link>
    <description>A Hindu undivided family is treated as a distinct assessable person under the Excess Profits Tax Act, separate from the individuals composing it. Where two families carrying on a business through their kartas were disrupted and the separated members then continued the business as a new partnership, the identity of the persons carrying on the business changed. A partnership formed by the kartas did not, by itself, make all family members partners in law. The principle of succession applied, and the Dayabhaga character of the families made no material difference. The referred question was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Dec 2018 15:11:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (6) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277348</link>
      <description>A Hindu undivided family is treated as a distinct assessable person under the Excess Profits Tax Act, separate from the individuals composing it. Where two families carrying on a business through their kartas were disrupted and the separated members then continued the business as a new partnership, the identity of the persons carrying on the business changed. A partnership formed by the kartas did not, by itself, make all family members partners in law. The principle of succession applied, and the Dayabhaga character of the families made no material difference. The referred question was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jun 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>