Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Section 20 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Income Tax Rules, 1962
Narendrakumar J. Modi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Gujarat ... on 4 August, 1976
This order of the Income-tax Officer was confirmed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The question to be considered is as to what is the effect of such an order of the authorities under the Act. For the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act, is the Wealth-tax Officer required to come to an independent finding or follow the finding recorded by the income-tax authorities under the Income-tax Act, with regard to that ? The Supreme Court in Narendrakumar J. Modi v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 109, while considering the effect of a civil court decree recognising partition under the Hindu law upon the assessment proceedings under the Income-tax Act, held that the income-tax authorities had their own view to take and were not bound by the partition decree granted by the civil court under the Hindu law. If this principle is accepted, then the authorities under the Wealth-tax Act have also to come to their own independent finding regarding partition which has to be reached keeping in view the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. The provisions of the Income-tax Act regarding declaration of partition under Section 171 of the Act are different from the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act regarding partition of property. Section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act reads as under:
Section 20 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sir Sundar Singh Majithia vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 4 June, 1942
In the cases before us, the members of the Hindu undivided family, while they continued to be undivided in respect of the rest of their estate, agreed to hold the three estates in question as tenants-in-common with effect from March 17, 1968. The agreement dated March 17, 1968, had the effect of bringing about a partial partition amongst the members of the Hindu undivided family in so far as the three estates were concerned. Because the family continued to be joint for other purposes, in view of the decision of the Privy Council referred to above, no order under Section 20 of the Act was necessary and in fact Section 20 was not attracted at all. Section 20 applies to a case where the 'joint family property has been partitioned as a whole among the various members or groups of members in definite portions'. The expression 'partitioned as a whole' means that a partition has taken place in its entirety in respect of all the property of the family. Section 20 cannot, therefore, apply to a case of partial partition as to property.
Harbhagwan And Sons vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 10 January, 1989
3. An appeal was carried to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of the Income-tax Officer. In appeal, the order of the Income-tax Officer was reversed and the Department carried a second appeal before the Tribunal. In appeal, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and restored the order of the Income-tax Officer and it was held that there was no partial partition with regard to the plot at Railway Road, Karnal, and further that partial partition regarding the plot situated at Mall Road took place on August 13, 1971, when the sale proceeds were credited in the accounts of the members of the family in the books of account of Messrs. Harbhagwan Harbhajan Lal and Sons, a firm at Chandigarh, and not from the date of the oral agreement dated October 22, 1970, or from the date of the memorandum of partial partition accepted on November 16, 1970. The assessee being aggrieved, claimed the following two questions of law, which were answered by this court in the judgment reported as Harbhagwan and Sons v. CIT [1989] 178 ITR 205, 206 :
1