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>Tribunal Upholds Income Tax Decision on HUF Partition</h1> <h3>Chandulal Gulabchand Mehta, Huf. Versus Income Tax Officer.</h3> The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the income-tax authorities and dismissed the appeal regarding the recognition of a partial partition by an HUF under ... Assessment After Partition, Hindu Undivided Family. Issues:1. Recognition of partial partition under section 171(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:The case involved the recognition of a partial partition by an HUF under section 171(9) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee HUF had made a partial partition on 30-5-1979, allocating Rs. 40,000 to the karta and Rs. 10,000 to another member. The ITO declined to recognize the partial partition, citing section 171(9) which prohibits recognition of partitions after 31-12-1978. The AAC upheld the ITO's decision, stating that challenges to the validity of statutory provisions cannot be made before tax authorities. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing against the retrospective application of section 171(9.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and referred to Circular No. 281 issued by the CBDT, explaining the rationale behind amending section 171. The circular highlighted the practice of creating multiple HUFs through partial partitions to reduce tax liability. The Tribunal also referred to legal principles stating that the law applicable is that in force during the assessment year. As the partial partition occurred after 31-12-1978, the provisions of section 171(9) applied, and the ITO was justified in not recognizing the partition. The Tribunal emphasized that the ITO must apply the law prevailing at the beginning of the assessment year, which in this case included section 171(9) effective from 1-4-1980.Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that under section 171(3), the ITO must determine the date of the partition, and in this case, the application for recognition was made after the insertion of section 171(9). As such, the ITO was bound by the provisions prohibiting recognition of partial partitions post 31-12-1978. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the income-tax authorities and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the assessee's argument lacked merit in light of the statutory provisions and legal principles governing the assessment year.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
