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>Court dismisses petition challenging partition recognition under Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Ancestral property ruling upheld.</h1> <h3>S. Sadasivam Versus Commissioner Of Agricultural Income-Tax, Madras-5</h3> The court dismissed the revision petition challenging the Commissioner's decision to revise the Agrl. ITO's order recognizing a partition under the Tamil ... Agricultural Income Tax Act Issues:1. Validity of the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I. T. revising the order of the Agrl. ITO.2. Recognition of partition under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.3. Application of Section 29(1) of the Act in the case.Analysis:The judgment pertains to a revision petition challenging the order of the Commissioner of Agrl. I. T. revising the order of the Agrl. ITO. The petitioner had requested separate assessments for himself, his wife, and daughter based on a registered partition deed. The Agrl. ITO recognized the partition under s. 29(1) of the Act, but the Commissioner set aside this order. The court held that the entire property was ancestral, obtained by the petitioner in a partition with his brother, making it ancestral property in his hands. The court concluded that the alleged partition was not valid under Hindu law, as neither the wife nor daughter had an interest in the property. The Commissioner correctly pointed out that the recognition of partition is relevant only in making an assessment under s. 17 of the Act, not for tax collection based on composition.The court emphasized that for Section 29(1) to apply, there must be an assessment under s. 17 on a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). Since no such assessment was made on the petitioner as a HUF, the recognition of the alleged partition was unwarranted. The court highlighted that the Agrl. ITO's order was untenable from any perspective, and the Commissioner was justified in setting it aside. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed with costs, affirming the Commissioner's decision. The judgment provides a clear interpretation of the statutory provisions and their application in the context of partition and tax assessment under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
