9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has stated the following two questions for the opinion of this court : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property which was inherited by the assessee from his father in terms of section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was his individual property and not of his joint Hindu family ? 2. Whether, on the facts and cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1967. The capital of the deceased father continued to remain with the firm and became the capital of the assessee. In his assessment, the assessee claimed that the interest of his father in the firm which devolved upon him is joint family property in his hands and that he must be assessed in the status of Hindu undivided family with respect to the said property. (The assessee had a son.) The I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his individual property. It was not coparcenary property in his hands. If so, the father's interest devolved upon the assessee under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and not under the main limb of section 6(1). Once this is so, the property would be his separate property ; as has been held by this court in CWT v. Chander Sen [1974] 96 ITR 634 which decision we find has been affirmed in appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
