Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

This section is now closed. Click here for new judgements

Home › All Judgements › CIT vs. Hariprasad Bhojnagarwala (Gujarat High Court – Full Bench)

CIT vs. Hariprasad Bhojnagarwala (Gujarat High Court – Full Bench)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM:
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS:
COUNSEL:
DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: April 17, 2012 (Date of publication)
AY:
FILE:
CITATION:

Click here to download the judgement (hariprasad_bhojnagarwala_23_HUF.pdf)


S. 23(2): A HUF is “owner occupying house for own residence”

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), claimed deduction u/s 23(2). The AO & CIT (A) took the view the view that as s. 23(2) applied to “a house or part of a house in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence“, a HUF was not eligible. The Tribunal took a contrary view and allowed the assessee’s claim. In view of the apparent conflict amongst various High Courts, the matter was referred to a Full Bench:

S. 23 (2) confers benefit “Where the property consists of a house or part of a house which (a) is in the occupation of the owner for the purposes of his own residence …“. A Hindu Undivided Family is not a fictional entity. It is nothing but a group of individuals related to each other by blood relations, or in a certain manner. A Hindu Undivided Family can be seen being a family of a group of natural persons. There is no dispute that the said family can reside in the house, which belongs to Hindu Undivided Family. A family cannot consist of artificial persons. U/s. 13 of the General Clauses Act, the words in masculine gender shall be taken to include females and words in singular shall include plural and vice versa. Therefore, the word ‘owner’ would include ‘owners’ and the words ‘his own’ would include ‘their own’. There is nothing, therefore, in the words used in s. 23(2), which excludes application of such provision to HUF, which is a group of individuals related to each other.

Note: See also Vineetkumar Bhalodia 46 SOT 97 where a HUF was held to be a “relative” for s. 56(2)(v)

Related Judgements

  1. FGP Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) 

    Though the assessee was following the mercantile system and was entitled to royalty under an agreement, the royalty was not assessable in accordance with the principles of real income, in view of the dispute pending in arbitration.
    Read more ›
  2. CCE vs. Shree Rubber Plast (Bombay High Court Full Bench) 

    In Shruti Colorants a Division Bench held that where there was a delay in filing Appeals u/s 35G of the Central Excise Act (= s. 260A of the IT ACT), the Court had no power to condone the delay by taking recourse to s. 5 of the Limitation Act.
     
    This…
  3. EMA India vs. ACIT (Allahabad High Court) 

    The judgement of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kelvinator of India Ltd. 256 ITR 1 where it was held that when an order u/s 143 (3) is passed, a presumption is raised that it has been passed on application of mind and that…
  4. Mercedes Benz vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    The view taken by the Tribunal is not the correct approach. If the Tribunal wanted to differ to the earlier view taken by the Tribunal in the identical set of facts, judicial discipline required reference to the larger bench. One co-ordinate bench finding fault with another co-ordinate bench is…
  5. Vodafone International Holdings B.V. vs. UOI (Bombay High Court) 

    On facts, the argument that the transaction involved merely a sale of a share of a foreign company by one non-resident to another is not acceptable. It would be simplistic to assume that the entire transaction between the non-residents was fulfilled merely upon the transfer of a single share…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*