https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286969 Section 25-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 did not apply to a mere partial division of joint family property, because the provision requires disruption of the Hindu family as such and partition of the joint estate in definite portions. A factual plea that shares had been divided could not be raised for the first time on appeal when it should have been proved at assessment. Profits arising from transactions in Calcutta and Bombay were rightly treated as income arising in British India, while losses of branches in Indian States were not deductible as British India losses. The Assistant Commissioner was not bound to investigate a belated and inconsistent claim for interest deduction. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 11:31:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286969 Section 25-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 did not apply to a mere partial division of joint family property, because the provision requires disruption of the Hindu family as such and partition of the joint estate in definite portions. A factual plea that shares had been divided could not be raised for the first time on appeal when it should have been proved at assessment. Profits arising from transactions in Calcutta and Bombay were rightly treated as income arising in British India, while losses of branches in Indian States were not deductible as British India losses. The Assistant Commissioner was not bound to investigate a belated and inconsistent claim for interest deduction. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 03 Nov 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286969