Case Details

Citation(s)
1977 SLG 290 1977 SLD 290 (1977) 36 TAX 311 (1977) 109 ITR 97
Calcutta High Court
IT REFERENCE NOS. 167, 140 AND 166 OF 1963, JUNE 18, 1974
A.N. SEN AND R.N. PYNE, JJ
B.L. Pal for the
Respondent

Bhupatrai Hirachand

VS

Commissioner of IncomE tax

Law: Income Tax Act, 1922

Section: 66(1),34,9(3)

Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to section 9(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) - Income from house property - Co-owners - Assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58 - Assessee's father who carried on business and had acquired house property, income from which was assessed in his hands in status of individual, died leaving behind his widow and his son i.e., assessee - Assessee was assessed in status of an individual - However, in reassessment proceedings assessee was assessed in respect of income from business and entire income from house property in status of HUF - Whether since there is no bar for a widow to be member of HUF, after death of assessee's father assessee and his mother constituted HUF of which assessee was karta and income form business was to be assessed in hands of such HUF - Held, yes - Whether, income from business and house property should be assessed in hands of HUF subject to qualification that in respect of income from house property only half share thereof should be assessed in hands of said HUF - Held, yes Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (corresponding to section 34(1) of the Indian Income-tax 1922) - Income escaping assessment - Information - Position prior 1-4-1989 - Assessment years 1955-56 to 1957-58 - Whether jurisdiction and power of ITO to reopen assessment already made can be exercised by him only if necessary conditions laid down in sub-section (a) or (b) of section 34(1) of 1922 Act are satisfied and, therefore, if necessary conditions laid down in either sub-sections are satisfied, exercised of jurisdiction and power will be valid and lawful - Held, yes - Whether Tribunal is competent to upheld order of ITO reopening assessment if it finds that requirement of sub-clause (b) of section 34 of 1922 Act are satisfied although officer purported to make order under clause (a) - Held, yes FACTS 'L', a Hindu governed by Mitakshara school of law, died leaving behind his widow, and a son, the applicant 'D' who at the time was near about 18 years of age. During his lifetime 'L' carried on business and also had acquired house property. The business was his individual business. The house property was also his…
πŸ”’
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492