9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the order passed by the learned ITO refusing to recognise u/s 171 (3) of the IT Act a partition, in the HUF, which being legal needs to be accepted. 2. The facts briefly stated are that the assessee family consisted of 4 brothers. There was partial partition of business capital of Rs. 20,000 on 29th October 1978 i.e., two days before the accounting period of the assessee ended on 31st October ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent unit; but all the members of the branch or of a sub-branch, can form a distinct separate corporate unit within the large corporate family and held property as such. But the law does not recognise some of the members of a joint family belonging to different branches or even to a single branch, as a corporate unit". 3. The ld. AAC has upheld the order of the ITO refusing to accept the claim of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition has been made. He, therefore, contended that there is no justification for not accepting the partial partition by the authorities below. The ld. departmental representative on the other hand has supported the order of the authorities below and had strongly relied upon the provisions contained in Art. 228A of Mulla s Hindu Law. No other argument were advanced. 5. We have carefully consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
