Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, West ... vs Gouri Shankar Bhar. on 26 March, 1967

Bhupatrai Hirachand vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 June, 1974

In the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Gouri Shankar Bhar [1968] 68 ITR 345 (Cal), which is a case under the Wealth-tax Act, it was held that on the death of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law his heirs do not spontaneously by operation of law become members of a Hindu joint family. They remain as co-owners with definite and ascertained shares in the property left by the deceased unless they voluntarily decide to live as a joint family.
Calcutta High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - A N Sen - Full Document

Bikash Chandra Ghose vs U.N. Bala, Income-Tax Officer, "B" Ward ... on 19 September, 1969

In the case of persons governed by the Dayabhaga law, the heirs do not automatically form a Hindu undivided family and for this proposition the decision of a Division Bench of this court, of which I happened to be a member in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Gouri Sankar Bhar, [1968] 68 I.T.R. 345 (Cal.) was relied on. In that case it was held that on the death of a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law, his heirs do not spontaneously, by operation of law, become members of a Hindu joint family. They remain as co-owners with definite and ascertained shares in the properties left by the deceased, unless they voluntarily decide to live as a joint family. The heirs of a Hindu governed by the Diyabhaga school cannot, therefore, be assessed to tax as a Hindu undivided family on the entire net wealth left by the deceased but each of the heirs must be separately assessed to tax on his share as an individual unless there is evidence to show that the heirs had voluntarily decided to constitute themselves into a Hindu joint family. Mr. Banerjee submitted that there is no evidence in this case that Surendra, Ganapati and Bidhu decided to form a joint Hindu family or on their repective deaths their heirs and legal representatives also continue to be members of a joint family. Mr. B. Das, also appearing for the petitioner, further elaborated this argument by pointing out that as Ganapati only left eight daughters, of whom six were married and who were living at different places with their husbands, it is not practicable to consider them as members of a joint family along with the sons of Surendra and Bidhu. Further, the family arrangement dated the 19th December, 1940, described the properties as joint properties in which each of the parties is declared to have an undivided one-third share which they were entitled to have partitioned and demarcated. The enjoyment of the properties were separate and distinct as each of the three brothers was entitled to an equal one-third share of the income from the estate. It was submitted that this document also negatives any presumption of jointness between the members of the three brothers. In the judgment given by this court in making the preliminary decree, the court has held that the estate was the personal and self-acquired property of Gagan and was not the joint property of Gagan and his brother, Ramcharan.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Smt. Sandhya Rani Dutta on 22 February, 2001

The assessee respondent has not put in an appearance. Since a question of law was involved, we had requested Mr. B. Sen to assist us, which he has very kindly done. He has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Gouri Shankar Bhar (68 I.T.R. 345), which judgment was considered by this Court in Gouri Shankar Bhars case. Mr. Sen drew our attention to the observation therein that under the Dayabhaga School a joint family amongst brothers was a creation not of law but of a desire to live jointly, it originated in fact and not by legal fiction. He drew our attention also to the observation that a joint family could, in relation to persons governed by the Dayabhaga School, come into existence only by an act of volition on the part of the heirs, such as an agreement to live, mess and worship jointly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 20 - S P Bharucha - Full Document
1