9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (2) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt years, viz., 1978-79 and 1979-80. The points involved are common and the following two questions of law have been referred to us at the instance of the Department : "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest credited to the accounts of the family members of the assessee-Hindu undivided family is not liable to be included in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l held that the partial partition claimed by the assessee was valid and the amount set apart under the said partition did not belong to the assessee-family. The Appellate Tribunal followed its earlier orders and rejected the appeal by the Department. The earlier order of the Appellate Tribunal in the assessee's own case, was the subject-matter of consideration before this court in CIT/CWT/CGT v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividual status. The Income-tax Officer, denied the benefit of deduction under section 80L of the Act, because the assessee had a member who had more than the taxable income in his individual assessment, and the assessee was a specified Hindu undivided family. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as the Appellate Tribunal held that as one of the members of the family, SM. M. Muthappa Chetti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee family cannot be said to have a member who is having an income exceeding the taxable limit and the assessee family cannot be regarded as a specified Hindu undivided family disentitling it to claim the relief under section 80L of the Act. We are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80L of the Act. We answer the second qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
