<?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>2004 (9) TMI 303 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59330</link>
    <description>For recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the joint family property must be actually divided among all members in the manner the property admits, with no joint property remaining. The award here allotted the Khar property to one coparcener, required release of the others&#039; interests, and was implemented through the memorandum, no-objection certificate, and sale deed, while the remaining properties had already been sold. The Tribunal treated the award and its implementation as evidence of a complete partition, rejected the colourable device objection, and noted that registration or stamp-duty objections did not prevent examination of partition in income-tax proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:35:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (9) TMI 303 - ITAT BOMBAY-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59330</link>
      <description>For recognition of partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the joint family property must be actually divided among all members in the manner the property admits, with no joint property remaining. The award here allotted the Khar property to one coparcener, required release of the others&#039; interests, and was implemented through the memorandum, no-objection certificate, and sale deed, while the remaining properties had already been sold. The Tribunal treated the award and its implementation as evidence of a complete partition, rejected the colourable device objection, and noted that registration or stamp-duty objections did not prevent examination of partition in income-tax proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>