<?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 (11) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24449</link>
    <description>A person from or through whom a non-resident receives income, directly or indirectly, can be treated as an agent under section 163(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income arising from the non-resident son&#039;s agricultural land was not physically paid over to him, but was used by the father for household expenses. That utilisation was held to amount to indirect receipt by the non-resident, bringing the father within the statutory definition of agent for tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:39:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (11) TMI 84 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24449</link>
      <description>A person from or through whom a non-resident receives income, directly or indirectly, can be treated as an agent under section 163(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Income arising from the non-resident son&#039;s agricultural land was not physically paid over to him, but was used by the father for household expenses. That utilisation was held to amount to indirect receipt by the non-resident, bringing the father within the statutory definition of agent for tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>