https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35950 A coparcener's declaration that his partnership share was impressed with the character of joint family property was not shown to be legally barred merely because the family might also bear business losses. No rule of Hindu law or general law was identified to support the contention that a possible exposure to losses prevents such impressing of property. On that basis, no question of law was found to arise for reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the reference petition was rejected. en-us Mon, 10 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:35:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35950 A coparcener's declaration that his partnership share was impressed with the character of joint family property was not shown to be legally barred merely because the family might also bear business losses. No rule of Hindu law or general law was identified to support the contention that a possible exposure to losses prevents such impressing of property. On that basis, no question of law was found to arise for reference under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the reference petition was rejected. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35950