Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Section 64 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Gowli Buddanna vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore, ... on 10 January, 1966
"In both of these cases, Gowli Buddanna's [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC) and Narendranatk's [1969] 74 ITR I90(SC), the assessee was a member of a pre-existing joint family and had, in one case on the death of his father and in the other on partition, became the sole surviving coparcener. But the decision in those cases did not rest on the consideration that there was an antecedent history of jointness. The alternative argument in Gowli Buddanna's case was an independent argument uncorrelated to the pre-existence of a joint family. The passage which we have extracted from the judgment of Shah, J. in that case shows that the. decision of this court did not proceed from any such consideration. The court held in terms categorical that the Hindu undivided family as an assessable entity need not consist of at least two male members.
Kalyanji Vithaldas vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 1936
The appellant's case falls within the rule in Kalyanji's case since the property, before it came into his hands, was not impressed with the character of joint family property. It is of great relevance that he has no son and his joint family consists, for the time being, of himself, his wife and daughter."
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gomedalli Lakshminarayan on 28 March, 1935
14. It then remained to be considered whether the income of Kathoke Lodge was to be assessed in the hands of the appellant as an individual or could be assessed in the status of an HUF. The court analysed at length the Judicial Committee's decision in Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC), referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan [1935] 3 ITR 367 (Bom) and the appellate decision of the Privy Council taken from the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. A. P. Swamy Gomedalli [1937] 5 ITR 416 (PC) and settled the legal position thus (p. 793 of 101 ITR) :
Surjit Lal Chhabda vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 6 October, 1975
16. In the instant case, the property in dispute (the share in Sri Durga Stores, allotted to him on partial partition) was his personal property and had no longer the incidence of joint family character. There is no claim of throwing it into the family hotchpot, Even if such a claim had been laid, it would at the most in the loose sense be the property of the HUF of the assessee and his wife but that would not make it property in which the assessee's wife would have any right, title or interest as such. If K. Satyanarayan Murty had become the sole surviving coparcener and there was no question of any partition, the rule in Buddanna's case [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC) would have applied and the requirement of having at least two male coparceners would not have arisen, In view of the principle succinctly indicated in Chhabda's case [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC), we must come to the conclusion that the assessee's status should have been that of an individual and there was no scope to hold that the income was liable to be assessed in the status of an HUF. The question referred to us, therefore, is accordingly answered.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras vs Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar. on 25 August, 1965
For the matter of that, the same question has to be asked in cases where the family, for the time being, consists of widows of deceased coparceners as in CIT v. Rm. Ar. Ar. Veerappa Chettiar [1970] 76 ITR 467, 470 (SC), 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 amongst them.
Section 171 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 256 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs A.P. Swamy Gomedalli on 30 April, 1937
14. It then remained to be considered whether the income of Kathoke Lodge was to be assessed in the hands of the appellant as an individual or could be assessed in the status of an HUF. The court analysed at length the Judicial Committee's decision in Kalyanji Vithaldas v. CIT [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC), referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan [1935] 3 ITR 367 (Bom) and the appellate decision of the Privy Council taken from the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. A. P. Swamy Gomedalli [1937] 5 ITR 416 (PC) and settled the legal position thus (p. 793 of 101 ITR) :