Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
S. Kameshwaramma vs S. Subramanyam And Ors. on 19 July, 1957
They had also a Division Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S. Kameshwaramma v. S. Subramanyam AIR 1959 AP 269 where their Lordships at page 271 observed as follows :
Section 27 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs M/S. Gurjargravures Private Limited on 8 November, 1977
But when there is either material or claim then the ratio of Gurjargravure's case does not apply. He further contended that in a case when a new ground deals only with a question of law it can be raised at any time and even before the Tribunal for the first time though the said question was never raised before either of the lower authorities.
Section 22 in The Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gangappa Cables Ltd. on 24 February, 1978
Ltd.'s case (supra) held that that case applies where there was absence of material and also the claim.
I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer on 29 February, 1984
He also cited before us our own decision in I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. v. ITO [1984] 9 ITD 422 (Hyd.). In that case we held that when there is enough material already on record to entertain the claim the assessee may be allowed to claim short term capital loss. In view of all the above decisions we are of the opinion that the additional ground raised before the Appellate Tribunal being in the nature of a pure question of law it ought to have been entertained and the decision thereon should have been given by the lower appellate authority. The mere fact that he had not allowed it to be raised before him does not debar this Tribunal to entertain the ground and to examine whether the said ground is legally tenable or not. The real question which falls for our consideration is, what is the nature of the maintenance claim of the wife. Whether such claim is available against the joint family property, if so, under what circumstances, if a wife of a Hindu husband died as a coparcener in a Hindu joint family, whether his wife who inherits under Sections 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is endowed with an additional right of claiming maintenance from the joint family also.