<?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>1960 (10) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289224</link>
    <description>The court determined that section 41 is mandatory, receivers were properly appointed to manage properties on behalf of the Hindu undivided family (HUF), and assessments on the HUF in the receivers&#039; hands for specified years were valid. The court upheld the assessments under the Income Tax Act, ruling against the assessee and directing payment of reference costs and counsel fees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 15:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=617939" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (10) TMI 103 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289224</link>
      <description>The court determined that section 41 is mandatory, receivers were properly appointed to manage properties on behalf of the Hindu undivided family (HUF), and assessments on the HUF in the receivers&#039; hands for specified years were valid. The court upheld the assessments under the Income Tax Act, ruling against the assessee and directing payment of reference costs and counsel fees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289224</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>