Case Details

Citation(s)
1950 SLG 120 1950 SLD 120 (1950) 18 ITR 586
Madras High Court

SATYANARAYANA RAO AND VISWANATHA SASTRI, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

M.S.M.M. Meyyappa Chettiar

v.

Commissioner of Income Tax

Law:

Section:

Section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 25A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Hindu undivided family - Assessment after partition - Assessment year 1940-41 - Whether if a partition is unequal and unfair, it is open to sons to repudiate by appropriate proceedings after they attain majority - Held, yes - Whether a partition effected by father in exercise of his peculiar power, transaction will be good until it is set aside and, thus, it is voidable but not void - Held, yes - Whether even if there is a partial partition of properties, if status of family is not affected by such partition, properties as partitioned cease to be joint family properties, and their income cannot enter into computation of income of undivided family - Held, yes - Whether income of undivided family gets reduced by parting with property; but so long as status of family continues undivided, income of remaining properties owned and possessed by family forms basis for assessment for purposes of income-tax - Held, yes - Whether if there is merely a division in status during assessment year by reason of section 25A of 1922 Act, if condition of partition of property among various members and groups of members in definite portions is not satisfied, family will be deemed to be undivided for purpose of Act and will continue to be a Hindu undivided family - Held, yes FACTS The assessee was karta of a HUF consisted of himself and two minor sons. During the assessment year 1940-41, the assessee applied under section 25A of the Act for an order recording a partition, which had taken place among the members of the family. The family was assessed till that date as an undivided family. In December 1941, another son was born; but the partition claimed was long before that date and even before the period of gestation. According to the applicant the partition was on 22-2-1940, which was reduced to writing on the 5-4-1940 as evidenced by the partition deed of that date. The property of the family which was the subject-matter of partition consisted of businesses, houses and other immovable properties, jewels and shares. This partition was not recognised by the Income-tax…
🔒
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