| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1968 SLG 259 1968 SLD 259 (1968) 67 ITR 675 |
Mysore High Court
A. NARAYANA PAI AND B. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
T. Krishna Rao and S.G. Sundara Swamy for the Petitioner. G.R. Ethirajulu Naidu and S.R. Rajashekhara Murthy for the
Respondent
A. NARAYANA PAI AND B. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
T. Krishna Rao and S.G. Sundara Swamy for the Petitioner. G.R. Ethirajulu Naidu and S.R. Rajashekhara Murthy for the
Respondent
S.M. Ananda Rao
v.
Commissioner of IncomE tax
Law:
Section:
Section 4 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Hindu undivided family - Assessable as - Assessment year 1963-64 - Assessee was assessed in status of an individual despite his claim that he should be assessed as a HUF in view of settlement deed dated 30-3-1952 - Case of assessee was that by virtue of settlement certain self acquired properties of his father was partitioned by father between himself and his sons with intention that properties so settled were to be enjoyed by assessee and his sons as if it were joint family property, that was allotted to share of each of sons partook character of joint family property and that, therefore, each of sons was entitled to be assessed both for purpose of income-tax as well wealth-tax, as a HUF - Whether recitals in settlement deed pointed to a division of self acquired property made by a Hindu father between himself and his sons with intention of effecting a severance of status between sons and also a separation in estate, therefore, settlement deed in question was really an instrument of partition - Held, yes - Whether share acquired by assessee under settlement deed were joint family properties wherein his sons and grandsons could acquire a right by birth and that being so, assessee was entitled to be assessed as a HUF - Held, yes FACTS One 'S', who was the father of the assessee, was the original owner of the properties in question. On 30-3-1952, the said 'S' executed a settlement deed between himself and his sons including the assessee and declared that the properties so settled on the assessee were intended to be enjoyed by himself and his sons as if they were joint family properties. On the basis of this settlement, the assessee claimed to be assessed as a HUF in respect of the properties settled on him. The ITO rejected the contention of the assessee and proceeded to assess the assessee as an individual. Against this order, the assessee preferred a revision petition under section 264(1) which was rejected by the Commissioner. On writ : HELD In the instant case, if the settlement deed could be construed as an instrument effecting a partition between the father and his sons in respect of the self-acquired properties ofโฆ
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