<?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>1981 (1) TMI 18 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29320</link>
    <description>The income from the new business of cotton oil extraction was rightly included in the Hindu Undivided Family&#039;s (HUF) hands as it was funded by joint family funds. The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the assessing officer and AAC, confirming that the income belonged to the HUF. Regarding the penalty for concealment of income, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the HUF for failure to disclose the income in its books, rejecting the argument that the income was disclosed in individual brothers&#039; returns. The Tribunal found that the HUF attempted to evade tax liability by passing off income as that of a non-existent partnership firm.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:46:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68317" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (1) TMI 18 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29320</link>
      <description>The income from the new business of cotton oil extraction was rightly included in the Hindu Undivided Family&#039;s (HUF) hands as it was funded by joint family funds. The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the assessing officer and AAC, confirming that the income belonged to the HUF. Regarding the penalty for concealment of income, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the HUF for failure to disclose the income in its books, rejecting the argument that the income was disclosed in individual brothers&#039; returns. The Tribunal found that the HUF attempted to evade tax liability by passing off income as that of a non-existent partnership firm.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29320</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>