Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Court rules Hindu Undivided Family continues; business partnership established. Costs allocated. Refund ordered.</h1> The court held that Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania must be deemed to continue as a Hindu undivided ... - Issues Involved:1. Joint or separate status of Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania.2. Business status of Harchandrai Anandram as a Hindu joint family business or a partnership.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Joint or Separate Status of Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath DhandhaniaThe primary issue was whether Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania were to be considered joint or separate in law. The Income Tax Officer had to determine if the family had partitioned and if the joint family property had been divided among the members in definite portions, as required under Section 25-A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922.The Income Tax Officer found that there was a separation into two groups (Calcutta and Bhagalpur) but no documentary evidence supported further sub-division among the Bhagalpur group. The Assistant Commissioner affirmed this, noting that there was no physical division of the family assets among the three brothers, and the properties and businesses continued to be managed jointly.The Assistant Commissioner concluded that the Bhagalpur group remained joint in status and property, and thus, the Income Tax Officer was correct in not recognizing the partition under Section 25-A. The Commissioner also refused to interfere, agreeing that the joint family properties had not been partitioned in definite portions.The court held that the findings indicated a partial rather than a complete partition. Therefore, the family must be deemed to continue as a joint Hindu family for assessing the income from properties not partitioned in definite portions. The court answered that Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania must be deemed to continue as a Hindu undivided family.2. Business Status of Harchandrai AnandramThe second issue was whether the business of Harchandrai Anandram should be considered a Hindu joint family business or a partnership. The Assistant Commissioner had found that there was no real partition among the sons of Anandram and that the partnership deed dated 1st August 1936 was a colorable document, not intended to be acted upon.The court noted that the businesses were divided between the Calcutta and Bhagalpur groups, and profits and losses were adjusted according to the shares of the different branches. However, the house properties and jote lands remained undivided among the Bhagalpur group.The Assistant Commissioner had rejected the claim under Section 25-A, stating that there was no partition in definite portions. The Commissioner supported this view, emphasizing that the joint family properties had not been partitioned among the members in definite portions.The court, however, held that the businesses were partitioned among the three branches of the family, and the partnership deed was valid. The court noted that Section 25-A does not prohibit members of an undivided Hindu family from entering into a partnership in respect of a portion of the joint property partitioned among themselves.The court concluded that the business of Harchandrai Anandram should be considered the business of Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarka Prasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania in partnership.Conclusion:1. Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarkaprasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania must be deemed to continue as a Hindu undivided family.2. The business of Harchandrai Anandram is to be considered the business of Rai Bahadur Bansidhar Dhandhania, Dwarka Prasad Dhandhania, and Kedarnath Dhandhania in partnership.Each party will bear their own costs, and the Commissioner will refund the sum of Rs. 100 deposited by the assessee as costs of the reference.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found