Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-I vs Kishan Lal on 3 March, 1980 cites

Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961

7. It is unnecessary to deal with the point raised in this case in very great detail because the points are more or less completely covered by a series of decisions. It is settled law that a coparcencer, who is a member of an HUF, has a right to throw his self-acquired property into the common hotchpot. The two decisions of the Supreme Court which have some bearing on this point are Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa, and Lakkireddii Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, . The following quotation from the judgment of Shah J. in the latter case indicates the legal position (at p. 1604) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 129 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Lakkireddi Chinna Venkata Reddi vs Lakkireddi Lakshmama on 4 March, 1963

7. It is unnecessary to deal with the point raised in this case in very great detail because the points are more or less completely covered by a series of decisions. It is settled law that a coparcencer, who is a member of an HUF, has a right to throw his self-acquired property into the common hotchpot. The two decisions of the Supreme Court which have some bearing on this point are Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa, and Lakkireddii Chinna Venkata Reddi v. Lakkireddi Lakshmama, . The following quotation from the judgment of Shah J. in the latter case indicates the legal position (at p. 1604) :
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 49 - J C Shah - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Pushpa Devi on 18 January, 1971

13. Our attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of this court in CIT v. Pushpa Devi [1971] 82 ITR 7, which is a case where a female member of an HUF sought to throw her share in that partnership into the hotchpot. It was held that she could not do so, but it was taken for granted that if it was a male, he could undoubtedly do so. The said judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Pushpa Devi. v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 730
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Surjit Lal Chhabda vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 6 October, 1975

14. We were also referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 776, where it was held that, the self, acquired property thrown into the family hotchpot was still to be assessed in the hands of the owner in spite of being thrown into the family hotchpot. But, it is clear that judgment was given on the basis that there was no son and, till a son was born, income from the property was to be assessed in the hands of the original assessed. As that is not the situation in this case, the judgment is not applicable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 125 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1