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 366,470 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

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

…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 1031/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. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1030/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. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1029/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. Thrivikrama (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1028/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. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1027/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. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1026/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. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1025/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. Manohar (HUF), Dakshina Kannada vs. DCIT, Mangalore

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

ITA 1024/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…