<?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>1996 (9) TMI 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17371</link>
    <description>A genuine deed partitioning a Hindu joint family&#039;s share in partnership firms was effective without registration under the Registration Act, because the partnership interest was treated as movable property. The absence of division of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds did not invalidate the partition, since the family could validly divide the income from the partnership interests even if the underlying assets were not physically severable. The Assessing Officer had examined the deed, heard the representative, and recorded satisfaction as to genuineness, so the order was not passed without the enquiry required by statute and revision was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 18:14:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56371" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 39 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17371</link>
      <description>A genuine deed partitioning a Hindu joint family&#039;s share in partnership firms was effective without registration under the Registration Act, because the partnership interest was treated as movable property. The absence of division of the agricultural lands by metes and bounds did not invalidate the partition, since the family could validly divide the income from the partnership interests even if the underlying assets were not physically severable. The Assessing Officer had examined the deed, heard the representative, and recorded satisfaction as to genuineness, so the order was not passed without the enquiry required by statute and revision was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>