A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT

65 ITR 586Reported decision#4223 most cited

What is A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT authority for?

Blending of separate property with joint family property does not require a formal document.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Also referred to as

A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT · 65 ITR 586 · blending of property · separate property · joint family property · formal document · HUF · partition · self-acquired property · Hindu law

Judgments citing A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT

Sri. E.Krishnamurthy (Ind), Puttur vs. DCIT-Central Circle, Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1798/BANG/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 996/BANG/2012[2008 - 09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 995/BANG/2012[2007 - 08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 994/BANG/2012[2006 - 07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 992/BANG/2012[2004 - 05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 991/BANG/2012[2003 - 04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

DCIT, Mangalore vs. E Ramesh Upadhyaya HUF, Dakshina Kannada

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 987/BANG/2012[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy (HUF) vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 983/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy (HUF) vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 982/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy (HUF) vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 981/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy (HUF) vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 980/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 979/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 978/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 977/BANG/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 976/BANG/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 975/BANG/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Krishna Murthy vs. DCIT

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 974/BANG/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1034/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1033/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

Sri. E. Vidyaranya (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in the case of Ramesh Upadhyay in ITA Nos

ITA 1032/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 132

…shown as the property of the joint family and allotted in the partition, there is no justification to disbelieve the claim of partition on this score alone. At any rate, the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT reported in 65 ITR 586 has held that there need not be any formal document for blending of separate properties with that of the joint family. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN reported in 56 ITR 62 at page 66 observed "when instructions are given that the self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, in our opinion at that…

A.Hanumantha Rao v. CWT (65 ITR 586) — Cited in 28 Judgments | BharatTax