Case LawHigh Court › Rc/77/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax...

Rc/77/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Emjay And Sons

High Court 05 Aug 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Rc/77/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Emjay And Sons
Date of order
05 Aug 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Rc/77/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S. Emjay And Sons, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.

Issue: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in holding that the 10 minorHUFs created in terms of the Memorandum dt.21.2.1983out of the major HUF consisting of four co-parceners, arevalid and assessable?

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAMR.C.No.77 of 2002 (on being mentioned) ORDER:(Per LNR,J) This reference under Section 256(1) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), at the instance of theRevenue, is made by the Hyderabad Bench of theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, through its order, dated25.08.1997 in R.A.No.14/Hyd/1997 in I.T.A.No.657/Hyd/1994. The following questions were referred in the statement of case: “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in holding that the 10 minorHUFs created in terms of the Memorandum dt.21.2.1983out of the major HUF consisting of four co-parceners, arevalid and assessable? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in holding that the abovementioned 10 minor HUFs created in terms of theMemorandum dt.21.2.1983 are not colourable devicesaimed at evading payment of taxes? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was justified in holding that the new entitywill be an assessable entity in respect of the income whichcannot be attributed to the HUF property in spite of the factthat it sprang up on account of partial partition which tookplace after 31.12.1978? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is correct in holding that the income isassessable in the status of HUF? 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT is correct in holding that the income is notassessable in the status of A.O.P.?” The reference in this case was made in complianceof the order passed by this Court in another reference. In all fairness, learned Senior Counsel for theapplicant i.e., the Department, stated that the questions deserve to be answered against the Revenue, in view ofthe fact that the tax impact is less than the limits stipulatedby the Department in the notification issued under Section268-A of the Act. Hence, we decline to answer the questions. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 26.08.2014JSU ______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDARAM JSU R.C.No.77 of 2002 Date: 26.08.2014
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan