https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49352 The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an order under section 25A(1) and subsequent proceedings under section 25A(2), tax liability must rest on the Hindu undivided family's (HUF) property, not personally on family members. The Court rejected the argument for joint and several liability on family members post-partition without proper orders. The members were not personally liable for tax, and attempts to recover from their personal remuneration were deemed invalid. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeals and confirming that tax recovery should have been pursued against the HUF's property. en-us Mon, 09 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49352 The Supreme Court held that in the absence of an order under section 25A(1) and subsequent proceedings under section 25A(2), tax liability must rest on the Hindu undivided family's (HUF) property, not personally on family members. The Court rejected the argument for joint and several liability on family members post-partition without proper orders. The members were not personally liable for tax, and attempts to recover from their personal remuneration were deemed invalid. The Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeals and confirming that tax recovery should have been pursued against the HUF's property. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 09 Nov 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49352