<?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 (2) TMI 42 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37215</link>
    <description>A Hindu partition requires a definite and unequivocal declaration of intention to separate, communicated to the person affected. Where the family consisted only of the karta and his son, a settlement deed in favour of the son, together with an earlier declaration before a public authority that partition had occurred, was treated as sufficient evidence of severance of joint status. External acceptance or non-acceptance of that declaration by another authority was immaterial, because family status depends on intention and conduct, not on formal acceptance. On that basis, the Hindu undivided family was treated as not continuing, and the settlement was not regarded as a gift to a coparcener.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:14:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=75761" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (2) TMI 42 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37215</link>
      <description>A Hindu partition requires a definite and unequivocal declaration of intention to separate, communicated to the person affected. Where the family consisted only of the karta and his son, a settlement deed in favour of the son, together with an earlier declaration before a public authority that partition had occurred, was treated as sufficient evidence of severance of joint status. External acceptance or non-acceptance of that declaration by another authority was immaterial, because family status depends on intention and conduct, not on formal acceptance. On that basis, the Hindu undivided family was treated as not continuing, and the settlement was not regarded as a gift to a coparcener.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>