Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Shri Chimanlal Hargovinddas, Poona vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Poona. on 15 December, 1975
cites
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Moti Lal Shyam Sunder vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 22 April, 1971
The Allahabad High Court in Moti Lals case found that there was an error of law in the approach of the Tribunal and, therefore, decided the reference in favour of the assessee.
A. Kannan Chetty vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 18 December, 1962
Kannan Chettys case, therefore, can be of no assistance in considering the present Reference.
T. G. Sulakhe vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Hyderabad ... on 6 March, 1959
19. Our attention was finally drawn to T. G. Sulakhe vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Hyderabad & Andhra Pradesh, 39 ITR 394 where it has been emphasised by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh that in deciding whether there has been a partition in a Hindu undivided family, the motive for partition is immaterial if the members of the joint family in fact inteded to separate, nor is the fact that the partition is unequal a conclusive consideration. It was further observed that even where the members of the joint family avow openly that the motive or partition is to escape the incidence of income-tax and to obtain benefit which the law affords them in the case of a partition, it cannot, merely because of such motive, be declared that the partition has not taken place or was not intended. In our case the Tribunal has not regarded the fact of inequality as conclusive and determinative of the factum of partition. This case therefore is also of no assistance to Mr. Dastur. In fact, the view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that this factor is not conclusive would seem to suggest very clearly that the factor of inequality is a relevant factor and would be required to be considered along with other pieces of evidence in finding out whether there was in fact a partial partition of certain assets as alleged by the assessee.
A. Kuppiah Mudaliar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras. on 8 March, 1966
In A. Kuppiah Mudaliar vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras, 63 ITR 522, the Madras High Court was considering a case where a partial partition had been effected but no physical division of the assets concerned had taken place. It was observed that physical division on partial partition in respect of an item of joint family property could be insisted upon only where such division is practicable otherwise allotment of shares should be regarded as sufficient. This decision also cannot really help Mr. Dastur.
1