<?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 (9) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15750</link>
    <description>Agricultural income-tax on co-owners holding property as tenants-in-common must be assessed separately in accordance with each defined share. Section 3(1) charges every person, and section 3(3) expressly applies where persons hold property as tenants-in-common and derive agricultural income, requiring assessment at the rate applicable to each tenant-in-common. Joint management of undivided property does not by itself create an association of persons, and the absence of division by metes and bounds is not decisive where shares are specified. The revisional order was unsustainable because it ignored the statutory treatment of tenants-in-common.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:08:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54750" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (9) TMI 18 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15750</link>
      <description>Agricultural income-tax on co-owners holding property as tenants-in-common must be assessed separately in accordance with each defined share. Section 3(1) charges every person, and section 3(3) expressly applies where persons hold property as tenants-in-common and derive agricultural income, requiring assessment at the rate applicable to each tenant-in-common. Joint management of undivided property does not by itself create an association of persons, and the absence of division by metes and bounds is not decisive where shares are specified. The revisional order was unsustainable because it ignored the statutory treatment of tenants-in-common.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>