https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65995 The case involved a dispute over the recognition of partial partition for tax purposes within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Income Tax Officer initially rejected the claim of partial partition but later accepted a total partition claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled that income from partially partitioned assets merged with the total partition and should not be separately assessed. However, the Tribunal held that without an order recognizing the partial partition, income from partially partitioned assets must be included in the total income of the HUF. The Tribunal set aside the AAC's order and upheld the ITO's findings, emphasizing the importance of a formal order under section 171 for tax assessment purposes. en-us Wed, 05 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:20:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65995 The case involved a dispute over the recognition of partial partition for tax purposes within a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Income Tax Officer initially rejected the claim of partial partition but later accepted a total partition claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner ruled that income from partially partitioned assets merged with the total partition and should not be separately assessed. However, the Tribunal held that without an order recognizing the partial partition, income from partially partitioned assets must be included in the total income of the HUF. The Tribunal set aside the AAC's order and upheld the ITO's findings, emphasizing the importance of a formal order under section 171 for tax assessment purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65995