Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others v. Chander Sen and Others

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 vs. CHATURANAN INDUSTRIES LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

…an Digitally Signed By:JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:30.09.2024 17:14:39 Signature Not Verified FAO(OS) 131/2024 Page 4 of 5 individual right of ownership on the subject property is untenable in law. 6. The Supreme Court in C.W.T vs. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204 has categorically held that after the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, any property inherited by a male Hindu from his ancestor is held by him as his personal property and it does not acquire the character of a coparcenary property. The averments in the pleadings relied upon do not show t…

SULTAN SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

…transferred in the name of assessee through court decree and there was no direction in the court decree that the land would go in the status of Hindu undivided family of assessee. Therefore applying the principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in 3 SCC 567, he held that it cannot be said that property would be taxable in the hands of the HUF of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 was determined at Rs. 969886/-. 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the learned…

SURAT SINGH,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD- 4, PANIPAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Surat Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 103 [Haryana] Pan : Cqlps9692H Assessment Years : 2010-11 Shri Sultan Singh, The Income Tax Officer, Vpo Bhapra, Vs. Ward : 4, Samhalka, Panipat. Panipat – 132 101 [Haryana] Pan : Cpsps0826K (Appellants) (Respondent)

…transferred in the name of assessee through court decree and there was no direction in the court decree that the land would go in the status of Hindu undivided family of assessee. Therefore applying the principle laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in 3 SCC 567, he held that it cannot be said that property would be taxable in the hands of the HUF of the assessee. Accordingly, the assessment order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017 was determined at Rs. 969886/-. 6. The assessee challenged the same before the ld CIT (A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Before the learned…

PR. COMMSIONER OD NINCOME TAX vs. B. C. MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

…year 1956, merely on account of inheritance of ancestral property an HUF does not come into existence and this is so held by the Supreme Court in the judgments in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, (1986) 3 SCC 567 and Yudhishter Vs. Ashok Kumar, (1987) 1 SCC 204. I have had an occasion to examine this aspect in detail in the judgment in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram and Others, 227 (2016) DLT 217 and the relevant paras of the Surinder Kumar (supra), and which judgment applies the ratios of the cases of Chander Sen (supra) and Yudhishter (sup…

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-04 vs. M/S INDO RAMA SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…t which he derives through his father. 22. Mr. Singh further submits that in the light of the aforesaid factual position, the reliance placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) SC 588 and CIT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 by the trial Court was wholly misplaced. He submits that in Yudhishter (supra) and Chander Sen (supra) the Supreme Court, while dealing with a situation where the property had devolved under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, had held that the same could not be held as HUF property, which is not the position in the present case as the join…

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION CO. LTD.

Bench: This Court On 29Th August, 2017 When Notice Thereof Was Ordered To Be Issued. The Counsels Were Heard On 12Th October, 2017 & Orders Reserved. 3. The Petitioner/Plaintiff Instituted The Suit, From Which This Petition Arises, For Recovery Of Possession & Mesne Profits With Respect To Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi From The Two Respondents / Defendants Being The Daughter-In-Law & The Granddaughter Of The Petitioner/Plaintiff, Pleading (I) That The Petitioner / Plaintiff Is The Owner In Possession Of Property No.B-237/B, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi; (Ii) That The Respondents / Defendants Are In Possession Of Rooms On First Floor Of The

…der Kumar Vs. Dhani Ram AIR 2016 Delhi 120 wherein it has been held as under:- “5. The Supreme Court around 30 years back in the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others Vs. Chander Sen and Others, MANU/SC/0265/1986 : (1986) 3 SCC 567, held that after passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the traditional view that on inheritance of an immovable property from paternal ancestors up to three degrees, automatically an HUF came into existence, no longer remained the legal position in view of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This judgment of the Supreme Court in…

PR. CIT-06 vs. METSO MINERALS INDIA PVT. LTD.

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

…No.1325/2012 invoking Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure pleading that the averments in the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. 6. Vide impugned order dated May 06, 2016, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported as (1987) 1 SCC 204 YvMMer vs. Ashok Kumar, and two decisions of this Court reported as 225(2015) DLT 211 fMinor) & »"'• & O"- 227 (2016) DLT 217 Kumar nhnni Kam & Ors. the learned Single Judge has held that the pleadings were illusory and. did not disclose a cause of action. The suit has been dismissed, and we treat this to be a misnomer for the reason if a plain…

DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. JAL HOTELS CO LTD

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

…t which he derives through his father. 22. Mr. Singh further submits that in the light of the aforesaid factual position, the reliance placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Yudhishter v. Ashok Kumar (1987) SC 588 and CIT v. Chander Sen (1986) 3 SCC 567 by the trial Court was wholly misplaced. He submits that in Yudhishter (supra) and Chander Sen (supra) the Supreme Court, while dealing with a situation where the property had devolved under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, had held that the same could not be held as HUF property, which is not the position in the present case as the join…