CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN

56 ITR 62Supreme Court of India#4062 most cited

What is CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN authority for?

When instructions are given that self-acquired property is to be treated as joint family property, the property assumes the character of joint family property at that moment. A mere instruction or recital in a subsequent partition is sufficient to show this.

29

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,469 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN · 56 ITR 62 · self-acquired property · joint family property · blending of property · throwing property into hotch-potch · partition · Hindu Undivided Family

Judgments citing CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN

Bharat Kumar Ramani, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward- 5(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 350/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri A. Harish &For Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR

…tion 45 / 47(i) of the Act? Learned AR, in support of his contention that partition among family 6. members does not constitute transfer, placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of CIT Vs. Keshavlal Lalubhai Patel 55 ITR 637 (SC), CIT Vs. M. K Stremann 56 ITR 62 (SC), Commissioner of Gift Tax, Madras V s. N. S. Getti Chettiyar 82 ITR 599 (SC), Smt. Cherukuri Eswaramma Vs. Controller of Estate Duty 69 ITR 109 (AP) and Smt. Cherukuri Eswaramma Vs. Controller of Estate Duty reported in 70 ITR 812 (AP). 7. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned DR that there is no dispute as to the principle that par…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

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

…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 moment the property C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, ITA No. 1798/Bang/2016, ITA Nos. 1024 to 1034/Bang/2012 Page 19 of 23 assumes the character of joint fam…

CIT v. M.K.STREEMAN (56 ITR 62) — Cited in 29 Judgments | BharatTax