Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

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
  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
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
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 law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1981 (7) TMI 40 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        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

        Court Rules Against Hindu Father's Discretionary HUF Partition; ITO Can Challenge. Invalid Partitions Not Family Arrangements. The court held that a Hindu father cannot effect a partial partition of HUF assets at his discretion, particularly when minors are involved and given ...
                      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.

                          Court Rules Against Hindu Father's Discretionary HUF Partition; ITO Can Challenge. Invalid Partitions Not Family Arrangements.

                          The court held that a Hindu father cannot effect a partial partition of HUF assets at his discretion, particularly when minors are involved and given unequal shares. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) has the authority to challenge such partitions under section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961. An invalid partition cannot be considered a family arrangement. The court ruled in favor of the revenue authorities, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with legal requirements in HUF partitions involving minors.




                          Issues Involved
                          1. Whether a Hindu father can effect a partial partition of HUF assets at his own volition.
                          2. Validity of partial partition when minors are given unequal shares.
                          3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to challenge the partition under section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
                          4. Whether the partial partition can be treated as a family arrangement.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis

                          1. Whether a Hindu father can effect a partial partition of HUF assets at his own volition.
                          The court examined the ancient Hindu law and subsequent customary and judge-made law, concluding that partial partitions were not recognized by traditional Hindu law. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) held that a Hindu father does not have the power to effect a partial partition of HUF assets. The court concurred with this view, stating that the extraordinary power of a Hindu father to disrupt the status of an HUF and divide the assets must be strictly construed and cannot be enlarged by implication. The court emphasized that such partial partitions could only be recognized if made with the consent of all coparceners, which is not feasible when minors are involved.

                          2. Validity of partial partition when minors are given unequal shares.
                          The court held that the father's power to effect a partition is subject to the condition that he must give equal shares to his minor sons. This condition is mandatory and non-compliance would vitiate the partition. The ITO has the power to refuse to recognize a partition if it is patently unequal and contrary to law. The court disagreed with the view that the ITO cannot challenge the partition on the grounds of inequality, asserting that the ITO must ensure the transaction's validity and fairness, especially when minors' interests are at stake.

                          3. Competence of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) to challenge the partition under section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
                          The court affirmed that the ITO has the statutory duty to inquire into the validity and genuineness of the partition under section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The ITO must record a finding on whether the partition is genuine and in accordance with law. The court rejected the argument that the ITO should not act as a guardian for the minors, emphasizing that the ITO must protect the minors' interests and ensure that the partition is fair and legal.

                          4. Whether the partial partition can be treated as a family arrangement.
                          The court dismissed the argument that an invalid partial partition could be treated as a family arrangement. The powers conferred on the ITO by section 171 are specific to the partition of HUF for tax assessment purposes. If a partition is found invalid, it cannot be validated by recharacterizing it as a family arrangement. The court also noted that there is no authority or principle supporting the proposition that a Hindu father can unilaterally bring about a family arrangement binding on his sons.

                          Conclusion
                          The court answered all the questions in the affirmative, holding against the assessee. The court upheld the view that a Hindu father cannot effect a partial partition of HUF assets at his own volition, especially when minors are involved and given unequal shares. The ITO is competent to challenge such partitions under section 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and an invalid partition cannot be treated as a family arrangement. The reference was answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found