TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 8
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....joint family had effected partial partition in respect of certain properties of the family. The claim was rejected by the Tribunal but was upheld by the High Court. The properties in question, as set out in the judgment of the Tribunal are: Venugopal Mohanlal A/c L. F. 8: Rs. By cash in hand 3,500.00 Telephone deposit 350.00 Osmangunj Extension Co-operative Society 54,750.00 Hiran....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....physical partition. This is not a case where the Hindu undivided family itself was carrying on its business before partial partition with these assets. The Hindu undivided family had investments in various businesses. Investments in a co-operative society to the tune of Rs. 54,750 or monies deposited with the bankers to the tune of Rs. 1,20,122.68 rare capable of being divided among the joint fami....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be deemed to be a partition ; or (ii) where the property does not admit of a physical division, then such division as the property admits of, but a mere severance of status shall not be deemed to be a partition ; (b) 'partial partition' means a partition which is partial as regards the persons constituting the Hindu undivided family, or the properties belonging to the Hindu undivided family, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....physically divided. The Income-tax Officer declined to record the partition. It was. held by this court that mere severance in status was not sufficient to establish partition, The require ment of the Hindu law and the requirement of the Income-tax Act were different in this regard. Several other cases were also referred to, i.e., R. B. Tunki Sah Baidyanath Prasad v. CIT [1995] 212 ITR 632 (SC); ....