<?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>1997 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15679</link>
    <description>Where a partnership firm has already been found genuine and valid, the business income cannot continue to be assessed in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family on a protective basis merely because the business was earlier owned by it. The prior finding that the firm was entitled to registration displaced the premise that the entire income still belonged to the family, so only the assessee&#039;s share income from the firm was assessable in its hands.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:12:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54679" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (12) TMI 40 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15679</link>
      <description>Where a partnership firm has already been found genuine and valid, the business income cannot continue to be assessed in the hands of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family on a protective basis merely because the business was earlier owned by it. The prior finding that the firm was entitled to registration displaced the premise that the entire income still belonged to the family, so only the assessee&#039;s share income from the firm was assessable in its hands.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15679</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>