Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 1848 1993 SLD 1848 (1993) 199 ITR 190
Karnataka High Court

K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT AND R. RAMAKRISHNA, 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

Bharath Kumar D. Bhatia

v.

Commissioner of IncomE tax*

Law:

Section:

Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessability of - Assessment year 1977-78 - Share in partnership firm received by assessee on partition in large family, was assessed in status of individual when he was unmarried - Whether after his marriage, such share in firm could be assessed in status of HUF, consisting of himself and his wife - Held, yes FACTS The assessee had obtained on partition of larger family an interest in a partnership firm, such share was assessed in his hands in the status of individual when he was unmarried. On his marriage on 16-1-1973, the assessee claimed that share income was assessable as income of the 'HUF', consisting of himself and his wife. This claim was not accepted by the ITO. On appeal, the AAC granted the status of a HUF. On appeal by the department, the Tribunal held that the existence of a wife does not make the income derived from the erstwhile ancestral property as that of the HUF and, accordingly, the share income belonged to the assessee as an individual. On reference: HELD From the decided cases the following principles emerge: 1. There is a distinction between a coparcener and a member of a joint family. A coparcener no doubt is a member but all members need not be coparceners. 2. Property obtained by a coparcener at a partition in a larger HUF is ancestral property in his hands. 3. Such an ancestral properties may be disposed of by the sole coparcener because of the peculiarity of the circumstances, that is to say, there is no one else to question to alienation or to claim a share in the property at that time. 4. HUF may consists of a male member and any other member who may be male or female and such other member may have either a right to claim partition or a right to claim maintenance out of the joint family property. 5. There is a distinction between two sets of cases: (i) a property which was not originally joint may due to certain circumstances acquire the character of a joint family property as in the case of blending; and (ii )a property which is already impressed with the character of joint family property coming into the hands of a person as a single coparcener. Under Hindu law,…
🔒
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