2014 (10) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ft to none other than his wife - the donee is very much part of the HUF, along with the children - Even if the disposition through the declaration is treated as valid, it did not have the effect of taking any fraction of the share of the HUF in the firm, outside the purview of the HUF. When the entire shareholding in the firm is by the HUF, there was no occasion or basis for further changing the extents among the persons constituting HUF - in a HUF, no member can claim any definite share in the assets, till the partition takes place - as long as the Hindu Family remains joint, which in fact is a sine qua non for it to be recognised as HUF, the question of one member of the HUF claiming any particular share in it, in contradistinction to und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at the profit derived by Smt. Subbaratnamma is assessable as the income of the assessee. Briefly stated, the facts are that the petitioner is the Kartha of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and is an assessee as HUF. That in turn is a partner in M/s. Sri Mallikarjuna Textiles, Proddatur. Through a declaration dated 15-04-1981, the petitioner stated that he gifted 50% of the share in the firm M/s. Sri Mallikarjuna Textiles in favour of his wife Subbaratnamma as stridhana property. To that extent, the profits were excluded in the returns. Order of assessment was passed accepting the same. However, the assessing officer reopened the proceedings in exercise of power under Section 147 of the Act and sought to ignore the so-called gift said to ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld a share in the firm and it was receiving its share of profits from the firm. That in turn was being treated as the income of the HUF. Had it been a case where the HUF transferred part of its share in the firm in favour of an outsider, its income, to that extent could have certainly been treated as reduced. The transfer is said to have been made by the petitioner in the form of a gift to none other than his wife. Incidentally, the donee is very much part of the HUF, along with the children. Even if the disposition through the declaration is treated as valid, it did not have the effect of taking any fraction of the share of the HUF in the firm, outside the purview of the HUF. When the entire shareholding in the firm is by the HUF, there wa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X