Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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
  • 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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
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
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 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
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    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
      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

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        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

        <h1>Court Denies Relief to HUF & Firm under Income-tax Act Sections 25(3) & 25(4)</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab Versus Hans Raj And Others.</h3> Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab Versus Hans Raj And Others. - [1972] 85 ITR 422 Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to relief under Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, for the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Muni Lal, Moti Lal, and Hans Raj.2. Entitlement to relief under Section 25(3) or 25(4) for the firm M/s. Muni Lal Moti Lal.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Relief under Section 25(4) for the HUF of Muni Lal, Moti Lal, and Hans Raj:The primary issue was whether the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of Muni Lal, Moti Lal, and Hans Raj was entitled to relief under Section 25(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The relevant facts are as follows:- The joint Hindu family of Mehtab Shah's four sons (Muni Lal, Moti Lal, Bhim Sen, and Hans Raj) existed until 1932, when a partition dissolved the joint family, and a partnership was formed.- On April 14, 1956, the HUFs of Muni Lal, Moti Lal, and Hans Raj disrupted, leading to the inclusion of their respective sons as partners, and the shares were re-determined.The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the relief claims under Section 25(4), but the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the relief based on the case of Dulichand Laxminarayan v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The Tribunal held that the business carried on by the HUF was succeeded by the members who became partners, thus constituting a succession under Section 25(4).However, the High Court disagreed, emphasizing that for Section 25(4) to apply, the following conditions must be met:1. The business must have been charged to tax under the 1918 Act.2. The business must have been carried on April 1, 1939, by the person claiming the relief.3. The person carrying on the business on April 1, 1939, had to be succeeded by another person as the owner carrying on the business.4. The succession was not merely a change in the constitution of the firm.The High Court found that only the first condition was satisfied. The business had remained the same, and the firm, not the HUF, was carrying on the business on April 1, 1939. The inclusion of new partners was deemed a change in the constitution of the firm, not a succession. Therefore, the relief under Section 25(4) was not applicable.2. Entitlement to Relief under Section 25(3) or 25(4) for the Firm M/s. Muni Lal Moti Lal:The firm M/s. Muni Lal Moti Lal claimed relief under Section 25(3) or 25(4), arguing that the introduction of new partners on April 14, 1956, constituted a dissolution of the earlier firm and succession to the business.The High Court noted that the firm's counsel conceded that the question referred by the Tribunal should be answered in the affirmative, meaning the firm was not entitled to relief under Section 25(4). The question was whether the introduction of new partners was merely a change in the constitution of the partnership, not a succession.The High Court affirmed that the change in partners constituted a reconstitution of the firm, not a succession. The firm continued to exist, and the business was not succeeded by another entity. Therefore, the firm was not entitled to relief under Section 25(3) or 25(4).Conclusion:The High Court concluded that the claims for relief under Section 25(4) by the HUFs of Muni Lal, Moti Lal, and Hans Raj were invalid as the conditions for succession were not met. Similarly, the firm's claim for relief under Section 25(3) or 25(4) was also invalid, as the introduction of new partners was a reconstitution, not a succession. The questions referred to the High Court were answered in the negative, and there was no order as to costs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found