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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after a genuine partial partition of family interests in managing agency commission, the income from those interests could still be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family.
Analysis: The operative question was whether the family had effectively disrupted its joint status in relation to the commission-bearing interests. The partition was found to be real and binding between the members, and not a sham. Hindu law permits partition of family assets and does not insist on physical division by metes and bounds where separate enjoyment can otherwise be secured according to shares. The fact that the managing agency arrangements remained unchanged under partnership law did not prevent the family status from changing for income-tax purposes. Once the family ceased to exist as a unit in respect of those assets, the Department could not continue to treat the resulting income as that of a Hindu undivided family.
Conclusion: The income from the commission agencies was not assessable as the income of the Hindu undivided family; the finding that there were materials to support such assessment was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a partial partition of family interests is genuine and effectively severs the joint status in respect of the relevant assets, the income thereafter accruing from those assets cannot be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family merely because the underlying contractual arrangements remain unchanged.