Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

133 ITR 690Supreme Court of India#4130 most cited

What is Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad v. Commissioner Of Income Tax authority for?

Partition of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property does not require physical division by metes and bounds; disruption of HUF status can be achieved by any mode, allowing parties to enjoy their shares as they desire.

28

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2018.

Also referred to as

Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad · 133 ITR 690 · SC · HUF partition · disruption of status · partition by metes and bounds · Hindu law · property enjoyment

Judgments citing Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…

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

…sed to tax. If it is not assessed to tax, the provisions of section 171 cannot be invoked for partition of the HUF. In this regard, our attention was invited to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kalloomal Tapeswari Prasad vs Commissioner Of Income Tax 133 ITR 690 (SC) in which it has been held that Hindu law does not require that this property must in every case be partitioned by metes and bounds or physically into different portions to complete the partition. Disruption of status ITA Nos. 987, 991, 992, 994 to996/Bang/2012, C. O. No. 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37/Bang/2013, ITA Nos. 974 to 983/Bang/2012, I…