<?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 (6) TMI 27 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24783</link>
    <description>After a partial partition of Hindu undivided family business assets accepted under Section 171, the assessee could not be assessed as an association of persons for his share of partnership profits. The revenue accepted that the partition had taken place, and the HUF continued only as a partner in the firm. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the income as assessable in the individual&#039;s hands alone, not in the status of an association of persons.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 13:28:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 27 - GAUHATI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24783</link>
      <description>After a partial partition of Hindu undivided family business assets accepted under Section 171, the assessee could not be assessed as an association of persons for his share of partnership profits. The revenue accepted that the partition had taken place, and the HUF continued only as a partner in the firm. On those facts, the Tribunal treated the income as assessable in the individual&#039;s hands alone, not in the status of an association of persons.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24783</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>