<?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>1960 (4) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49553</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Gandalal was not considered a resident in the taxable territories for the relevant assessment year. The Court emphasized that the partnership businesses in Bombay and Banaras were not affairs of the HUF that could be controlled and managed by the HUF itself, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1960 (4) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49553</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Gandalal was not considered a resident in the taxable territories for the relevant assessment year. The Court emphasized that the partnership businesses in Bombay and Banaras were not affairs of the HUF that could be controlled and managed by the HUF itself, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 1960 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>