<?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>1980 (1) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36857</link>
    <description>Compensation under a personal accident-cum-death insurance policy payable only on accidental death did not vest in the insured during life and therefore was treated as the individual property of the recipient, not Hindu undivided family property. Income earned from investing that compensation followed the character of the source and remained the individual income of the assessee. Shares purchased in the names of the karta&#039;s wife and minor son with money advanced by the Hindu undivided family were acquired with borrowed funds, creating a debtor-creditor relationship, so the shares were their individual property and the resulting income could not be assessed as Hindu undivided family income.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Mar 2010 10:36:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75403" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (1) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36857</link>
      <description>Compensation under a personal accident-cum-death insurance policy payable only on accidental death did not vest in the insured during life and therefore was treated as the individual property of the recipient, not Hindu undivided family property. Income earned from investing that compensation followed the character of the source and remained the individual income of the assessee. Shares purchased in the names of the karta&#039;s wife and minor son with money advanced by the Hindu undivided family were acquired with borrowed funds, creating a debtor-creditor relationship, so the shares were their individual property and the resulting income could not be assessed as Hindu undivided family income.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36857</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>