Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.76 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd on 26 March, 1965 cites

Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959

The next question is whether after the death of Nandlal a new partnership was entered into between the representatives of the two branches of the families, i.e., Nandlal's and Bachhulal's. Before we consider this question it is as well that we advert to incidental questions of law that were raised. One is whether the widow of Nandlal could under Hindu law be a karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of three widows and two minors. There is conflict of view on this question. The Nagpur High Court held that a widow could be a karta: see Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. & Berar v. Seth Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas(1); Pandurang Dahke v. Pandurang Gorle(2), The Calcutta High Court expressed the view that where the male members are minors and their natural guardian is the mother, the mother can represent the Hindu undivided family for the purpose of assessment and recovery of taxes under the Income-tax Act: see Sushila Devi Rampurla v. Income-tax Officer(2); and (3) (1959) 38 I.T.R. 316.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Sm. Champa Kumari Singhi vs Additional Member, Board Of Revenue, ... on 7 December, 1961

Sm. Champa Kumari Singhi v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal(1) The said two decisions did not recognize the widow as a karta of the family, but treated her as the guardian of the minors for the purpose of income- tax assessment. The said. decisions, therefore, do not touch the question now raised. The Madras and Orissa High Courts held that coparcenership is a necessary qualification for the managership of a joint Hindu family and as a widow is not admittedly a copartner, she has no legal qualifi- cations to become the manager of a joint Hindu family.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1