<?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>1978 (2) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37504</link>
    <description>A declaration may be treated as genuine and acted upon where supported by notarial certification and surrounding evidence, even if some recitals are inaccurate; the High Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s finding as non-perverse. On construction of the declaration, clear operative language and subsequent conduct showed an unequivocal intention to blend self-acquired assets into the Hindu undivided family hotchpot, with part of the property also divided among family members. The court reiterated that no pre-existing joint family nucleus is necessary for such conversion. The assessee was therefore entitled to be treated in HUF status rather than as an individual.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:01:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76050" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (2) TMI 27 - CALCUTTA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37504</link>
      <description>A declaration may be treated as genuine and acted upon where supported by notarial certification and surrounding evidence, even if some recitals are inaccurate; the High Court accepted the Tribunal&#039;s finding as non-perverse. On construction of the declaration, clear operative language and subsequent conduct showed an unequivocal intention to blend self-acquired assets into the Hindu undivided family hotchpot, with part of the property also divided among family members. The court reiterated that no pre-existing joint family nucleus is necessary for such conversion. The assessee was therefore entitled to be treated in HUF status rather than as an individual.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37504</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>