Thursday, November 24, 2011

Compilations of case law: STATUS OF ASSESSEE ; PARTITION

PARTITION

Death of coparcenor – No ipso facto partition
CIT Vs Charan Das (HUF) (All) 280 ITR 637

No evidence that after the death of Kartha, partition by metes and bounds took place – No partition as per Expl. 1 to Sec. 6 – Sale deed executed by son of deceased Kartha on behalf of HUF – Entire property treated as that of HUF for capital gains computation – Share of deceased Kartha not to be excluded
CIT Vs Dharam Pal Singh (HUF) (All ) 280 ITR 629

In the absence of more than on coparcenor, a partition is impossible – A sole surviving coparcenor with female members – Grant of share in property to female members – could only be in the nature of settlement of property.
V.V.S. Natarajan Vs CIT (Mad) 111 ITR 539
B.T. Ravindranath Punja Vs CIT (Kar) 179 ITR 243
Sat Pal Bansal Vs CIT (P&H) 162 ITR 582

IT authorities had their own view to take and were not bound by the partition decree – A junior member can act as the karta of a HUF with the consent of all the other members.
Narendrakumar J. Modi Vs CIT (SC) 105 ITR 109

Even after death of a male coparcenor in the joint family and even after the undivided shares of the family members became defined under the Hindu Succession Act, until an order u/s.171 is passed by ITO recognizing the partition in the family on the basis of any claim made in this behalf HUF continue to be assessed to IT & WT.
Narendrakumar Modi Vs CIT (SC) 105 ITR 109
R.B. Tunki Sah Baidyanath Prasad Vs CIT (SC) 212 ITR 632.
Kalloomal Topeswari Prasad (HUF) Vs CIT (SC) 133 ITR 690.

Partition not registered – No physical division – No actual division of assets – No partition in HUF.
CIT Vs Venugopal Inani (SC) 239 ITR 514
Kanhaiyalal Thawarji Vs CIT (HP) 176 ITR 329
Satish Chandra Modi (HUF) Vs CIT & Anr. (AP) 216 ITR 717

Partial partition not valid after insertion of 171(9) w.e.f. 1.4.1980
CIT Vs Tej Cloth Weaving Factory (P&H) 178 ITR 474

Death of karta after Hindu Succession Act came into force – Female members of family entitled to definite share in family property –Female members not becoming divided from members of family.
State of Maharashtra Vs Narayana Rao Sham Rao Deshmuk & others (SC) 163 ITR 31

Proviso to sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act does not effect a disruption in coparcenory family – No partition effected by operation of law.
Addl. CIT Vs Maharani Raj Laxmi Kumari Devei (SC) 224 ITR 582

HUF consisting of karta, wife, 2 daughters and adopted son – Karta died – Property continued to belong to HUF.
Gowli Buddanna Vs CIT (SC) 60 ITR 293

Widow's share in coparcenary property must be ascertained by adding the share to which she would be entitled at a notional partition immediately before her husband's death and the share which she would get in her husband's interest upon his death.
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum Vs Hirabai Khandappa Magdum & Ors.(SC) 129 ITR 440

Only one coparcenor – No partition possible – Karta cannot gift any HUF property to himself.
T.G.K. Raman (HUF) Vs CIT (Mad) 140 ITR 876
Balchand Malaiya HUF Vs CWT (MP) 227 ITR 651

HUF consisting of 2 brothers – No partition took place by virtue of Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act on death of one brother – Interest of deceased in HUF cannot be excluded for assessment.
CWT Vs Chandrasinhrao D.Gaekward (Guj) 237 ITR 875

Sec. 20 applies to transactions entered into prior to enactment of WT Act – Order of WTO recording partition, mandatory.
Tatavarthi Rajah & Anr Vs CWT (SC) 225 ITR 561

Partial partition of HUF not recognized under WT Act – HUF would continue to be assessable as if no partial partition had taken place.
Lalchand Kothari Vs CWT (Raj) 225 ITR 142

Deceased and his brother coparceners in HUF – Deceased dying issueless leaving widow – His entire share in coparcenory property passes – No question of deemed parturition with wife.
Bhartiben S. Jhaveli Vs Controller of estate duty (Guj) 238 ITR 995

Setting up certain assets of HUF in respect of certain coparcener on a condition that no further claim will be allowed – Partial partition – Not recognized in IT Act.
ITO Vs P. Shankaraiah Yadav (ITAT, Hyd) 91 ITD 228

No comments:

Post a Comment