TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Post-partial partition of Hindu Undivided Family impacts assessments; High Court rules for individual taxation</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur Versus Nemkumar Porwal And Others</h3> Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Nagpur Versus Nemkumar Porwal And Others - [1984] 148 ITR 30, 18 TAXMANN 382 Issues:1. Whether an association of persons existed post partial partition of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).2. Whether there was an overriding title created after the partial partition.Analysis:The judgment pertains to assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1973-74, and 1974-75 involving a HUF comprising Shri Nemkumar Porwal, his minor sons, and his wife. A partial partition agreement dated September 7, 1967, evidenced the division of profits among the members. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed the erstwhile members of the HUF as an association of persons post-partition, leading to disputes. The Appellate Authority Commissioner (AAC) initially ruled in favor of separate assessments for the divided members, but the matter was remanded. Upon further review, the AAC concluded that there was no association of persons and canceled the assessments as such for all relevant years.In subsequent appeals, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the ITO, holding that the assessments as an association of persons were erroneous. The Tribunal referred questions to the High Court regarding the existence of an overriding title post-partial partition and the assessment status of the divided members. The High Court analyzed the legal position, emphasizing that post-partition, Nemkumar received income as a representative of individual members, not the HUF. Citing a previous decision, the court affirmed that income diversion occurred due to the partition, leading to individual ownership of income shares. Therefore, the High Court answered the first question affirmatively in favor of the assessee.Regarding the second question, the High Court reiterated its stance from a prior case that post-partition, separated HUF members cannot be automatically assessed as an association of persons. Each member's income must be assessed individually following the partition. Consequently, the answer to the second question was negative, against the Revenue. The High Court dismissed all Departmental appeals for the relevant assessment years and awarded costs to the assessee.
TaxTMI 