<?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>1979 (9) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36773</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the share income from the partnership business should be assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) rather than as an individual. The court held that the property received on partial partition was the assessee&#039;s self-acquired property, allowing him to impress it with HUF character. Consequently, the income from the partnership business was deemed the family&#039;s income. The court awarded costs and counsel&#039;s fees to the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75319" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (9) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36773</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the share income from the partnership business should be assessed in the status of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) rather than as an individual. The court held that the property received on partial partition was the assessee&#039;s self-acquired property, allowing him to impress it with HUF character. Consequently, the income from the partnership business was deemed the family&#039;s income. The court awarded costs and counsel&#039;s fees to the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36773</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>