Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (4.34 seconds)
Documents citing N.V. Subrahmanyam vs Additional Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru on 19 January, 1960

Lakshman Prakash vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, U.P. on 27 July, 1962

A Hindu undivided family is an association of persons as distinct from an artificial association (See Commr. of Income-tax v. Sarwan Kumar, 1945-13 ITR 361 : (AIR 1945 All 286) which was followed by the Andhra High Court in N.V. Subrahmanyam v. Additional Wealth Tax Officer, AIR 1961 Andh Pra 75, in Ram Kumar Ram Niwas v. Commr. of Income-tax, 1952-22 ITR 474: (AIR 1953 All 150) and AIR 1961 All 487 (FB). The Hindu undivided family is not a separate legal entity from those who constitute it as is a company from its share-holders or a corporation from its members. Consequently in the appeal that was filed on behalf of the Hindu undivided family by Laxman Prakash as Karta he and all the other members who constituted the joint Hindu family were the appellants. It cannot, therefore, be said that Laxman Prakash was not an appellant before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In this view of the matter even if I accept the interpretation put upon the words "fresh assessment" suggested by Mr. Pathak the order directing a fresh enquiry and assessment on Laxman Prakash in his individual status could be passed under Section 31(3) of the Act.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Shri Harbhajan Singh Dhillon on 21 October, 1971

In N. V. Subramanian v. Wealth Tax Officer 40 I.T.R. 567 the vires of the Act was challenged by a Hindu undivided family before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the exact contention being "that the respondent cannot take action under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 with respect to a Hindu undivided family on the ground that the Act, in so far as it enables the levy and collection of wealth-tax on the capital value of assets of a Hindu undivided family is beyond the legislative competence of the Union Parliament". No point appears to have been raised as to whether wealth-tax could at all be the subject of a levy under entry 86, as the High Court noted (p. 571) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 0 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Union Of India vs Harbhajan Singh Dhillon on 21 October, 1971

In N. V. Subramanian v. Wealth Tax Officer 40 I.T.R. 567 the vires of the Act was challenged by a Hindu undivided family before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the exact contention being "that the respondent cannot take action under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 with respect to a Hindu undivided family on the ground that the Act, in so far as it enables the levy and collection of wealth-tax on the capital value of assets of a Hindu undivided family is beyond the legislative competence of the Union Parliament". No point appears to have been raised as to whether wealth-tax could at all be the subject of a levy under entry 86, as the High Court noted (p. 571) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 97 - Cited by 223 - S M Sikri - Full Document

Seth Banarsi Das Etc vs Wealth Tax Officer, Special Circle ... on 8 December, 1964

This question has been considered by several High Courts and the reported decisions show consensus in judicial opinion in favour of the construction of Entry 86 which we have adopted (vide Mahavirprasad Badridas v. M. S. Yagnik, Second Wealth- tax Officer, C-11 Ward, Bombay(1) (Bombay High Court's decision); N. V. Subramanian v. Wealth Tax Officer, Eluru(2) (Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision-single Judge Bench); P. Ramabhadra Raju v. Union of India (8) (Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision-Division Bench); Sarjerao Appasaheb Shitole v. Wealth Tax Officer, A. Ward, Belgaum (4 ) (Mysore High Court's decision); and Rajah Sir, M. A. Muthiah Chettiar v. Wealth Tax Officer, Special Investigation Circle 'A', Madras(5) ( Madras High Court's decision). We ought to add that these reported decisions show that the validity of the impugned provision was challenged before the High Courts on the ground that the Hindu undivided family is an association and as such, the capital value of its assets could not be taxed under Entry 86. That naturally raised the question about the true legal character and status of Hindu undivided family, and the contention that they were associations has been rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 135 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Union Of India vs H. S. Dhillon on 21 October, 1971

In N. V. Subramanian v. Wealth Tax Officer(1) the vires of the Act was challenged by a Hindu undivided family before the Andhra Pradesh High Court the exact contention being "that the respondent cannot take action under the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 with respect to a Hindu undivided family on the ground that the Act, in so far as it enables the levy and collection of wealth-tax on the capital value of assets of a Hindu undivided family is beyond the legislative competence of the Union Parliament". No point appears to have been raised as to whether wealth-tax could at all be the subject of a levy under entry 86, as the High Court noted (p. 571) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 122 - S M Sikri - Full Document
1