<?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>1988 (5) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23663</link>
    <description>Section 64(1)(iii) applies only where the minor child is of an individual assessee and does not extend to a Hindu undivided family. Because the assessee was an HUF, the minor admitted to the benefits of partnership could not be clubbed in its hands, and the Tribunal was right to exclude that share income from the HUF&#039;s assessment. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:17:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62661" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (5) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23663</link>
      <description>Section 64(1)(iii) applies only where the minor child is of an individual assessee and does not extend to a Hindu undivided family. Because the assessee was an HUF, the minor admitted to the benefits of partnership could not be clubbed in its hands, and the Tribunal was right to exclude that share income from the HUF&#039;s assessment. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23663</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>