<?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>1984 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61022</link>
    <description>A subsisting order recognising a partial partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be ignored in later assessment proceedings. Where such an order has been accepted after enquiry and remains unrevoked, the Income-tax Officer must give it legal effect and cannot collaterally assess the spouses&#039; income in the status of HUF. If the department considers the partition order to be incorrect, the proper course is to invoke the statutory revisional mechanism or otherwise set the order aside in law, not to disregard it while framing assessments. On that footing, clubbing the income in the hands of the HUF was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:54:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99469" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 114 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61022</link>
      <description>A subsisting order recognising a partial partition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 cannot be ignored in later assessment proceedings. Where such an order has been accepted after enquiry and remains unrevoked, the Income-tax Officer must give it legal effect and cannot collaterally assess the spouses&#039; income in the status of HUF. If the department considers the partition order to be incorrect, the proper course is to invoke the statutory revisional mechanism or otherwise set the order aside in law, not to disregard it while framing assessments. On that footing, clubbing the income in the hands of the HUF was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>