Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.57 seconds)Gurupad Khandappa Magdum vs Hirabai Khandappa Magdum And Ors on 27 April, 1978
Much reliance was placed by the learned departmental representative on the decision in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum (supra) in which it was observed that Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act resorts to the simple expedient, undoubtedly fictional, that the interest of a Hindu Mitakshara coparcener 'shall be deemed to be' the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition of that property had taken place immediately before his death. But we are of the opinion that this decision does not help the revenue.
Prem Kumar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 6 September, 1979
Reference may be made to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Prem Kumar v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 347 wherein it has been held that the property falling to a single coparcener on partition does not lose its character as a joint family property solely for the reason that there is no other member, male or female, at a particular point of time. Under the Hindu Law, it is not predicated of a Hindu joint family that there must be a male member in existence. Even after the death of the sole male member, so long as the property which was originally of the joint Hindu family remains in the hands of the widows of the members of the family and is not divided among them, the joint family continues.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore vs Nagarathnamma on 27 October, 1969
3. On appeal, the AAC confirmed the action of the WTO by relying on the decision of the Mysore High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Nagarathnamma [1970] 76 ITR 352.
Malchand Thirani And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 15 December, 1978
In the case of Malchand Thirani & Sons v. CIT [1980] 121 ITR 976 the Calcutta High Court has made it clear that the provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act use the words 'Mitakshara coparcenary property' and not the words, 'joint family property'. Therefore, the main Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act cannot apply where a Hindu dies without leaving a coparcener for it is elementary that inheritance can never remain in abeyance. Further, Section 6 has no application to the property received by a member of a joint family on partition. In view of our aforesaid observation, we hold that the properties left by the husband of the assesse were assessable as HUF properties for the purpose of wealth-tax and, accordingly, the lower authorities were not justified in including one-third interest in the HUF Balkrishanlal Poddar in the net wealth of the assessee.
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Rn. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar on 4 December, 1969
For this proposition, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Em. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467.
Savitri Devi vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 18 September, 1974
Then, again, in the case of Savitri Devi (supra) the husband having wife, a son and a daughter died. Thereafter his son also died. The widow adopted a son. It was held by the Patna High Court that even before the adoption as well as after the adoption, the HUF retained its character as HUF. Bearing this principle in mind and considering the facts of the present case it has to be held that the status of the assessee was HUF.
1