<?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>1984 (10) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27050</link>
    <description>The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the application of higher tax rates to Hindu undivided families with female members. The court interpreted the term &quot;member&quot; in the context of joint families to include both male and female members earning income exceeding specified limits. By referencing relevant provisions of the Finance Act and the Income-tax Act, the court concluded that the Legislature&#039;s use of &quot;member&quot; was intentional and encompassed all family members. Citing a previous decision, the court affirmed the assessment at higher rates, denying the assessee&#039;s claim that &quot;member&quot; should only refer to male members.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:00:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66048" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 29 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27050</link>
      <description>The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the Revenue, upholding the application of higher tax rates to Hindu undivided families with female members. The court interpreted the term &quot;member&quot; in the context of joint families to include both male and female members earning income exceeding specified limits. By referencing relevant provisions of the Finance Act and the Income-tax Act, the court concluded that the Legislature&#039;s use of &quot;member&quot; was intentional and encompassed all family members. Citing a previous decision, the court affirmed the assessment at higher rates, denying the assessee&#039;s claim that &quot;member&quot; should only refer to male members.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27050</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>