https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57121 The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders under Section 263(1) and restored the ITO's finding under Section 171, validating the partial partition claimed by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal held that the CIT's argument regarding the necessity of consent from minor coparceners for partial partition was incorrect, citing precedent that a father can effect a partition without their consent. The assessments for the relevant years were reinstated based on the ITO's initial decision, emphasizing that the partial partition was valid despite the absence of minor coparceners' consent. en-us Wed, 10 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:18:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57121 The Tribunal set aside the CIT's orders under Section 263(1) and restored the ITO's finding under Section 171, validating the partial partition claimed by the Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). The Tribunal held that the CIT's argument regarding the necessity of consent from minor coparceners for partial partition was incorrect, citing precedent that a father can effect a partition without their consent. The assessments for the relevant years were reinstated based on the ITO's initial decision, emphasizing that the partial partition was valid despite the absence of minor coparceners' consent. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=57121