<?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 (6) TMI 42 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27812</link>
    <description>After partition by metes and bounds, sharers of family property are not automatically an association of individuals for agricultural income-tax. The test is whether they joined in a common purpose or concerted action to produce income, profits or gains; mere joint cultivation by one member, management by a common manager, or division of net income among sharers is insufficient. On the stated facts, there was no evidence of any prior agreement by all sharers, including the minors, to carry on a joint income-producing venture, and the father&#039;s continued management was treated as family convenience and parental obligation. The assessment on the footing of an association of individuals therefore could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:02:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (6) TMI 42 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27812</link>
      <description>After partition by metes and bounds, sharers of family property are not automatically an association of individuals for agricultural income-tax. The test is whether they joined in a common purpose or concerted action to produce income, profits or gains; mere joint cultivation by one member, management by a common manager, or division of net income among sharers is insufficient. On the stated facts, there was no evidence of any prior agreement by all sharers, including the minors, to carry on a joint income-producing venture, and the father&#039;s continued management was treated as family convenience and parental obligation. The assessment on the footing of an association of individuals therefore could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27812</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>