| Case ID |
1f6c097e-fdc5-4035-91db-e644379a752a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 1992 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1992 |
| Decision |
The Gujarat High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that a father and his unmarried daughter can form a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) for tax purposes. The court held that the income generated from the joint properties shared by the father and daughter should be assessed as the income of the HUF, not as individual income. The court emphasized that under the Income-tax Act, the concept of HUF encompasses both male and female members, allowing such family structures to be valid for taxation. The decision highlighted the legal precedent that supports the inclusion of unmarried daughters in the HUF, establishing that the income derived from the properties belonged to the joint family and was not the separate property of the father alone. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case before the Gujarat High Court, the legal status of Hindu Undivided Families (HUF) was scrutinized, particularly focusing on the inclusion of unmarried daughters. The case arose from a tax assessment challenge where the Income Tax Officer contended that properties received by the father post-partition were his separate assets, excluding his daughter from the HUF. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequently the Tribunal ruled in favor of the father, asserting that the HUF status was valid and included his unmarried daughter. The High Court reinforced this position, citing various precedents that affirm the inclusion of female members in HUFs for tax purposes. This ruling is pivotal for understanding HUF structures within the context of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and sets a precedent for the treatment of family income derived from joint properties. The implications of this ruling extend to ensuring equitable tax treatment for families, recognizing the evolving dynamics of familial relationships in modern jurisprudence. |
| Court |
Gujarat High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
R.C. Mankad,
S.B. Majmudar
|
| Lawyers |
K.N. Rawal,
K.H. Kaji
|
| Petitioners |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Respondents |
Harshvadan Mangaldas
|
| Citations |
1992 SLD 1419,
(1992) 194 ITR 136
|
| Other Citations |
Bharatkumar Chinubhai v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 1 (Guj.),
N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC),
C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC),
Gajanand Sutwala v. CWT [1967] 63 ITR 512 (Mys.),
Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC),
Panna Lal Rastogi v. CIT [1967] 65 ITR 592 (Pat.),
Pratap Narain v. CIT 1967 63 ITR 505 (All.),
Seth Tulsidas Botumal v. CIT [1988] 170 ITR 1 (A.P.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
4
|