<?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 100 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18080</link>
    <description>Binding Full Bench authority had already settled that Jat Sikhs in Punjab can constitute a joint Hindu family, so the customary-law argument advanced by the Revenue could not prevail. On that basis, Jat Sikhs were not shown to be excluded from Hindu law for this purpose, and the deceased was treated as having constituted a Hindu undivided family for estate duty purposes, in favour of the accountable person.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 16:01:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (9) TMI 100 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18080</link>
      <description>Binding Full Bench authority had already settled that Jat Sikhs in Punjab can constitute a joint Hindu family, so the customary-law argument advanced by the Revenue could not prevail. On that basis, Jat Sikhs were not shown to be excluded from Hindu law for this purpose, and the deceased was treated as having constituted a Hindu undivided family for estate duty purposes, in favour of the accountable person.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>