Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.31 seconds)Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, U. P. vs Ram Rakshpal, Ashok Kumar. on 9 November, 1966
19. The Gujarat High Court in Babubhai's case [1977] 108 ITR 417, dissented from the view of the Allahabad High Court in Ram Rakshpal case [1968] 67 ITR 164 (All) and observed thus (p. 422 of 108 ITR):
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore vs Nagarathnamma on 27 October, 1969
The Mysore High Court in CIT v. Smt. Nagrathnamma [1970] 76 ITR 352, in a different context, took the same view.
Additional Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs V.R.A. Manicka Mudaliar (Decd.) (By ... on 17 November, 1976
Manicka Mudaliar's case was decided by the Division Bench of the High Court on November 17, 1978.
The Additional Commissioner Of Income ... vs P.L. Karuppan Chettiar on 1 February, 1978
Therefore, when the same question again came up before the Madras High Court in Karuppan Chettiar's case [1978] 114 ITR 523 [FB] it was referred to the Full Bench of the court.
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961
8. Question No. 2 presents some difficulty because there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between different High Courts on this issue. The Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that since no coparcenary subsisted between the assessee, Shrivallabhdas Modani, and his sons, the property received by Shrivallabhdas Modani on his father's death could not be legally blended with the property which had been allotted to his sons on partition in the year 1962. This view is supported by Goli Eswariah v. CGT [1970] 76 ITR 675 (SC), Malesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa [1961] 3 SCR 779 and Vijay Kumar Kedia v. CED [1976] 104 ITR 302 (All). There is no difficulty so far.