TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order upholding apportionment of the tax liability among the members of the partitioned Hindu undivided family on the basis of the recognised partition. (ii) Whether any referable question of law arose on the validity of the two gift deeds said to have been executed by the karta, when the liability was not worked out on their basis and the deeds had already been treated as invalid.
Issue (i): Whether any referable question of law arose from the Tribunal's order upholding apportionment of the tax liability among the members of the partitioned Hindu undivided family on the basis of the recognised partition.
Analysis: The assessment proceedings proceeded on the basis of a partition that had been recognised in accordance with the relevant procedure. The tax liability was apportioned with reference to the assets allotted to the respective members under that partition, and the challenge did not show any legal infirmity in the method adopted. On those facts, no substantive question of law arose from the Tribunal's view on apportionment.
Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on apportionment, and the issue was against the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether any referable question of law arose on the validity of the two gift deeds said to have been executed by the karta, when the liability was not worked out on their basis and the deeds had already been treated as invalid.
Analysis: The gift deeds had already been held invalid by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings, and the family itself treated them as invalid in the partition arrangement. Since the apportionment of liability was made on the basis of the partition and not on the basis of the gift deeds, the question of their validity did not affect the operative controversy and remained purely academic.
Conclusion: No referable question of law arose on the gift deeds, and the issue was against the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The application failed because the Tribunal's order did not disclose any question of law warranting a reference, and the disputed gift-deed issue had no practical bearing on the assessed liability.
Ratio Decidendi: In a reference application, a question will not be referred where the liability has been determined on an accepted partition and the remaining controversy is only academic or unsupported by any substantive legal issue.
TaxTMI 
