<?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>1982 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29321</link>
    <description>The High Court of Delhi determined that the properties bequeathed by L. Acharaj Ram to his sons were held by them in their individual capacities and not as part of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The court emphasized the need for explicit terms in the will and the testator&#039;s intention, rejecting the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation that the properties were ancestral. The judgment favored the Revenue, ruling that the assessee held the properties individually, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 11:48:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68318" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (5) TMI 34 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29321</link>
      <description>The High Court of Delhi determined that the properties bequeathed by L. Acharaj Ram to his sons were held by them in their individual capacities and not as part of the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The court emphasized the need for explicit terms in the will and the testator&#039;s intention, rejecting the Tribunal&#039;s interpretation that the properties were ancestral. The judgment favored the Revenue, ruling that the assessee held the properties individually, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 May 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>