| Case ID |
ab18c0f6-ec9b-47c1-8d41-442f579b0dd5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
30388 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, confirming that the assessee, Premchand, was to be assessed as a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) despite the partition of property that included a share given to his wife. The ruling emphasized that the marital bond and the status of the wife as a 'sapinda' member of the joint family remained intact following the partition, which did not alter the character of the property as HUF. Consequently, the higher rate of tax applicable to the HUF status was correctly applied by the Income Tax Officer. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Premchand v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Supreme Court addressed the complexities surrounding the assessment of income for a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case centered on the partition of a joint family property governed by the Benaras School of Mitakshara law, where the petitioner, Premchand, contested his assessment as an individual instead of an HUF, following the partition that allocated a share to his wife. The Court reaffirmed the principle that the existence of female members in a family, particularly a wife, retains the HUF status, thereby influencing tax assessment rates. This decision is pivotal for understanding the application of HUF status in tax law, particularly in the context of familial relationships and property rights. The ruling also highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the joint family system in Hindu law, which continues to be relevant in contemporary legal discussions regarding family and tax law. |
| Court |
Supreme Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
Seetharam Reddy,
M. Jagannadha Rao
|
| Lawyers |
P. Sarathy,
M.S.N. Murthy
|
| Petitioners |
Premchand
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
1984 SLD 662 = (1984) 148 ITR 440
|
| Other Citations |
Gowli Buddanna v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 293 (SC),
N.V. Narendranath v. CWT [1969] 74 ITR 190 (SC),
C. Krishna Prasad v. CIT [1974] 97 ITR 493 (SC),
CIT v. K. Satyanarayana Murty [1983] 12 Taxman 215(Ori.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
4
|