TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the arbitration award and subsequent implementation brought about a complete partition of the Hindu undivided family property so as to require recognition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and whether the assessee-HUF could still be treated as subsisting for the relevant assessment year.
Analysis: A partition under Hindu law may be brought about by severance of status and definition of shares, but for recognition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the partition must be complete in respect of the members and the properties of the HUF, and where the property admits of division there must be actual physical division by metes and bounds or such division as the property admits of. The award in question allotted the Khar property to one coparcener, directed the others to release their interests, created a charge for payment of compensation, and contemplated sale by the allotted coparcener if required. The award was accepted by the parties and acted upon through a memorandum of understanding, a no-objection certificate under section 269UL(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the sale deed, in which the allotted coparcener acted as vendor and the others signed only as confirming parties. The two Gujarat properties were found to have been sold earlier, and the Tribunal found no material to show that any joint property remained undisposed of. The Tribunal also held that the award and its implementation were not a colourable device to evade tax, and that, in income-tax proceedings, the award could be looked into to establish the factum of partition notwithstanding objections based on registration or stamp duty.
Conclusion: The partition of the HUF was held to have taken effect on the date of the award, or at the latest on the date the Department issued the no-objection certificate and accepted the sale arrangement, and the rejection of the claim under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held to be unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee's claim of partition was accepted, the HUF was treated as having ceased to exist for the relevant year, and the assessment order was directed to be set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: For recognition under section 171 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a partition is valid only when the joint family property is actually divided in the manner the property admits of, the arrangement is implemented, and no joint property of the HUF remains.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
