Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Cit Vs. Shambhu Ram

Cit vs Shambhu Ram

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 17, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707736

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Decided On
Case Number
IT Reference No. 440 of 1983 17 July 2003
Subject
Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cit

Advocate Ms. Prem Lata Bansal and; Ajay Jha, for the Revenu

Respondent

Shambhu Ram

Legal References

Reported In
[2003]133TAXMAN15(Delhi)

Excerpt

- d.k. jain, j.at the instance of the revenue, the income tax appellate tribunal, delhi bench 'b', new delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this court :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the will of l. acharaj ram dated 28-10-1963, half share in the immovable property and shares in the companies etc. which devolved on the assessed on the death of his father were held by him in his capacity as karta of the hindu undivided family consisting of himself, his wife and sons and not in his individual capacity ?'2. no one appears for the assessed. we have accordingly heard ms. prem lata bansal, senior standing counsel for the revenue.since answer to the question raised in the present reference stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of the assessed himself, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. we may, however, note that the reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77 and the issue raised is as to whether the property bequeathed in favor of his son by late shri. acharaj ram by will dated 28-10-1963 was to be treated as their individual property or property belonging to their branch of undivided family.3. as noticed above a similar controversy came up for consideration of this court in cit v. shambhu ram soni : [1982]138itr373(delhi) and it was held that there was no indication of the intention of the said testator that the property shared by the two sons equally be taken by them as ancestral property in their hands. it was thus held that the property which came to the share of the assessed was to be treated as his personal property.in view of the said decision, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.4. the reference stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

D.K. Jain, J.

At the instance of the revenue, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question for opinion of this court :

'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the Will of L. Acharaj Ram dated 28-10-1963, half share in the immovable property and shares in the companies etc. which devolved on the assessed on the death of his father were held by him in his capacity as Karta of the Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself, his wife and sons and not in his individual capacity ?'

2. No one appears for the assessed. We have accordingly heard Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, senior standing counsel for the revenue.

Since answer to the question raised in the present reference stands concluded by a decision of this court in the case of the assessed himself, we deem it unnecessary to state the facts. We may, however, note that the reference pertains to the assessment year 1976-77 and the issue raised is as to whether the property bequeathed in favor of his son by late Shri. Acharaj Ram by Will dated 28-10-1963 was to be treated as their individual property or property belonging to their branch of undivided family.

3. As noticed above a similar controversy came up for consideration of this court in CIT v. Shambhu Ram Soni : [1982]138ITR373(Delhi) and it was held that there was no indication of the intention of the said testator that the property shared by the two sons equally be taken by them as ancestral property in their hands. It was thus held that the property which came to the share of the assessed was to be treated as his personal property.

In view of the said decision, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.

4. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial