Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.46 seconds)
Income-Tax Officer vs S.V. Anandmohan Nandyal on 22 July, 1986 cites

Kalyanji Vithaldas vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 November, 1936

That is the rule in Kalyanji's case [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC)." (p. 447) As can be seen from the second proposition stated above when the property was not owned by a HUF before it came to be owned by a sole surviving coparcener living with female members of the family entitled to maintenance, the assessment has to be made as individual. Now in this case the wife and two daughters of Shri S.V. Anandmohan are only persons entitled to maintenance. Marriage expenses to which the daughters are entitled to, amount to meeting one sort of the right of maintenance vested in them only. For applying this proposition we have to know what is the origin of the investment in the impugned company held by Shri S.V. Anandmohan. Was it HUF's income prior to his coming into possession of the same as sole surviving coparcener ? However, no investigation of any sort in this regard seemed to have been made by either of the lower authorities. Therefore, there is no material to dispose of the appeals on this point.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Surjit Lal Chhabda vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Bombay on 6 October, 1975

(2) But where the property was not owned by a HUF before it came to be owned by a sole surviving coparcener living with female members of the family entitled to maintenance, the assessment has to be made as individual. The reason is that before it got converted as joint family property it was not owned by coparceners of a HUF. After conversion too the assessment remains so till a son is born. Such a conversion as joint family property occurred for the first time in the hands of the sole surviving coparcener by reason of the gift by the father in Kalyanji's case [1937] 5 ITR 90 (PC) and by reason of the sole coparcener throwing his separate property into family hotchpot in Chhabda's case [1975] 101 ITR 776 (SC). The property would have to be assessed as individual even in spite of the existence of female members, until a son was born who could have a right by birth.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 125 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Satinder Kumar (H.U.F.) vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 16 January, 1976

In Satinder Kumar (HUF) v. CIT [1971] 106 ITR 64 (HP) the facts were that the assessee was a HUF. S was its karta. He was a partner in the firm R carrying on business in Lower Bazar, Simla, from the assessment year 1963-64. On 14-1-1966 S along with some others started another partnership firm V at Lower Bazar. Simla, itself and began doing the same business as that of the firm R for the assessment years 1967-1968 and 1968-69. The assessee-firm returned losses derived from the firm V. However, for assessment year 1968-69 the HUF filed a revised return in which the share income derived by S from the firm V was omitted. The said share income derived by S from the firm V was included in his individual return for assessment year 1968-69 and also in the returns for 1969-70 and 1970-71, the ITO accepted individual returns of S. The Addl. CIT wanted to revise the orders of the ITO under Section 269. In the reference to the High Court it was held that the mere circumstance that S was the karta of the assessee-family and at the same time a partner in a firm would not lead to a presumption that he represented the assessee family in the partnership firm. If a karta declares that he is acting for himself alone, no such presumption can be raised. Whether he is acting for himself alone or on behalf of family is a matter governed by very different considerations. If he does not claim to act on behalf of the assessee, there must be clear and definite material, if the contrary is to be proved, linking the family with the business carried on by the karta.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 12 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Central) vs Jai Narain Ram Chander on 27 August, 1980

12. Another decision which we came across in support of our decision is found in CIT v. Ram Narain [1980] 126 ITR 267 (Punj. & Har.). In that case it was held that it is a fundamental principle of law of partnership that the relation of partnership arises from contract and not from status. It is clear in law that as a consequence of partition between the members of a HUF, each member of the HUF gets the share in his own right. In that case the HUF consisted of the karta, his wife and three sons. The HUF used to be a partner in a firm having one-fourth share. The karta used to represent the HUF in the firm. There was a partial partition in the family as a result of which the one-fourth share in the firm was divided equally between the five members of the family each taking one-fifth share. A memorandum of partition was drawn up according to which the capital standing to the credit of the family in the books of the firm was also divided into five shares and, thenceforward the amount which fell to the share of four members other than the assessee were treated as loans from them. The ITO recognized the partial partition. The four members filed separate returns showing the income in their individual capacity in respect of one-fifth share of the one-fourth share of income derived from the firm. The Tribunal held that each assessee should be treated as an individual. The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the correct status determined by the Tribunal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - S Mukharji - Full Document
1