Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CIT versus M/S S.L.J. KUMAR

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Cit v. M/S S.L.J. Kumar - INCOME TAX REFERENCE No. 112 of 1990 [2005] RD-AH 65 (5 January 2005)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.37

Income Tax Reference No.112 of 1990

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Meerut v. M/s Shiam Lal Jitemndra Kumar, 59, New Mandi, M.Nagar.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, has referred the following question of law under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for opinion to this Court:-

"Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in directing to adopt the status as that HUF?"

The present reference relates to the Assessment Years 1975-76, 1981-82 and  1982-83.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise of the present Reference are as follows:

The respondent-assessee filed returns of income in the status of HUF. The Assessing Authority, however, took the status of the respondent-assessee as that of an Association of Persons and since the returns were filed in the status of HUF, the assessments were framed in the status of HUF on protective basis. It appears that there was a HUF in the name ands tyle of Shiam Lal, consisting of Shyamlal, Surendra Kumar, Jitendra Kumar and other as co-parceners and Smt. Vidya Devi and others as members.  A partial partition in respect of the aforementioned family was claimed with effect from 30th November, 1970 for which a memorandum was executed on 31st December, 1970. Certain assets were partitioned and reallocated amongst various groups.  The Income-tax Officer has accepted the partial partition vide order dated 28th February, 1974. Another partial partition was effected on 1st December, 1971 with the memorandum being executed on 31st March, 1972. Certain assets were again partitioned and reallocated  amongst various groups.  This claim of partial partition was rejected by the Income-tax Officer. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner has accepted the claim of  partial partition which order has been upheld by the Tribunal.

We have heard Sri Shambhoo Chopra, the learned standing counsel for the Revenue.

It has been stated by the learned standing counsel that the partial partition has been accepted by this Court. In this view of the matter the Tribunal was justified in upholding the status of the respondent assessee.

We, accordingly, answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.