TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., who had taken certain share earlier on partition of his family HUF in which partition his wife was not allotted a share and whether the share so taken by the male is held by him in his individual capacity or in the capacity of a HUF comprising himself and his wife. On behalf of the department, Mr. Ruhela was of the view that once a partition has been effected, then the members of the family hold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fit and this particular right is at par with his individual property. Therefore, on no ground it could be held that on the death of the male only half share of the property passed. Mr. Bhandari relied on Sarabhai Tribhovandas v. CED [1981] 24 CTR 221 (Guj.), Smt. Dhani Devi and Jhavermal v. CED (1973) 89 ITR 96 (Raj.) and the Tribunal decision in Smt. S. Harish Chandra v. ACED (1977) Tax. 46(6)-I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r and his widow adopting a son and the issue was whether the son could be deemed to be in existence at the time of death of the karta. In this case, the date of death is 17-3-1954. This was prior to the enactment of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the above-mentioned case, it was held that the adoption would relate back to the date of the karta and, accordingly, it was held that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was the grandson of the deceased and the issue under consideration was whether on the death of a lady there would be a notional partition or not. This particular case is of no held to the assessee as the facts in the instant case are the property passing consequent to the death of a male coparcener. However, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Dara Seshavataram (1981) 129 ITR 339 h....