1991 (3) TMI 43

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property which was inherited by the assessee from his father in terms of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was his individual property and not of his joint Hindu fami....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....artner of the said partnership dated April 1, 1967. The capital of the deceased father continued to remain with the firm and became the capital of the assessee. In his assessment, the assessee claimed that the interest of his father in the firm which devolved upon him is joint family property in his hands and that he must be assessed in the status of Hindu undivided family with respect to the said....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rest of the father in the partnership firm was his individual property. It was not coparcenary property in his hands. If so, the father's interest devolved upon the assessee under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not under the main limb of section 6(1). Once this is so, the property would be his separate property ; as has been held by this court in CWT v. Chander Sen [1974] 96 ITR 634 whi....