{"id":194151,"date":"2009-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009"},"modified":"2016-09-05T05:26:05","modified_gmt":"2016-09-04T23:56:05","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n\n                                      ITA No. 444 of 2008\n                                      Date of decision: 18.8.2009\n\n\n\n\nCommissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad\n                                                    ......Appellant\n                               Vs.\n\nShri Khacheru (HUF), Ward-2, Ahirwara,Ballabgarh.\n                                                     ...Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Standing Counsel for revenue.\n         Mr.Sanjay Bansal, Sr. Advocate, assisted by\n         Mr. Parshant Bansal, Advocate, for assessee\n\n                               ****\n\n\nADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral)\n<\/pre>\n
1.          The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A of the<\/p>\n
Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated<\/p>\n
12.10.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”<\/p>\n
New Delhi in ITA No. 2908\/Del\/2003 for assessment year 1999-2000,<\/p>\n
proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:<\/p>\n
                               a. “Whether on the facts and in the<\/p>\n
                               circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
                               Tribunal has erred in law in holding that<\/p>\n
                               provisions of Section 171(9) are not attracted<\/p>\n
                               in this case despite the fact that assessments<\/p>\n
                               for Assessment Years 1994-95 to 1998-99
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                        [2]<\/p>\n
                              had already been completed on 28.9.2000<\/p>\n
                              whereas assessment for the year under<\/p>\n
                              consideration was completed much later on<\/p>\n
                              23.3.2001.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                              b.   ” As provided in Section 171(9) of the<\/p>\n
                              Income Tax Act, 1961 and the decision of<\/p>\n
                              Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of<\/p>\n
                              M.V.Valliappan and others (238 ITR 1027),<\/p>\n
                              partial partition is not recognized under the<\/p>\n
                              provisions of Income Tax Act and can not<\/p>\n
                              be treated as a valid partition of HUF.”<\/p>\n
                              c. ” Although tax involved is Rs.2,04,549\/-<\/p>\n
                              which is less than the limits laid down by<\/p>\n
                              the CBDT in this regard, the appeal is filed<\/p>\n
                              as the substantial question of law of wider<\/p>\n
                              ramification is involved.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.          During the assessment proceedings, the assessee pleaded<\/p>\n
partial partition of HUF dated 18.6.1998 which was not recognized in view<\/p>\n
of provisions of Section 171(9) of the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A) partly<\/p>\n
upheld the claim of the assessee, which was affirmed by the Tribunal. The<\/p>\n
Tribunal observed:\n<\/p>\n
                              “One more aspect of the matter to be<\/p>\n
                              noticed is that even in the ground taken<\/p>\n
                              before us the department does not seem to
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                [3]<\/p>\n
                      question the proposition of law that Section<\/p>\n
                      171(9) does not apply to a joint Hindu<\/p>\n
                      family which has never been assessed as<\/p>\n
                      undivided, but seems to take the point that<\/p>\n
                      by the time the assessment was made on the<\/p>\n
                      assessee for the assessment year under<\/p>\n
                      appeal on 23.3.2001, assessments for the<\/p>\n
                      assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 had<\/p>\n
                      already been completed on 28.9.2000 and<\/p>\n
                      thus the assessee fell under the category of a<\/p>\n
                      HUF “hitherto assessed”. But the cut-off<\/p>\n
                      point for ascertaining whether the HUF has<\/p>\n
                      been “hitherto assessed” cannot, in our<\/p>\n
                      opinion,   be   the   date   on    which   the<\/p>\n
                      assessment is made for the assessment years<\/p>\n
                      1994-95 to 1998-99, but the date on which<\/p>\n
                      the partial partition had taken place.      If<\/p>\n
                      before 18.6.1998, the date of partial<\/p>\n
                      partition, an assessment had been made on<\/p>\n
                      the assessee-HUF then of course it cannot<\/p>\n
                      be contended that the assessee is not a HUF<\/p>\n
                      which has not been hitherto assessed. But<\/p>\n
                      once the partial partition had been effected,<\/p>\n
                      and before that date no assessment had been
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                               [4]<\/p>\n
                      made upon the assessee-HUF, then it must<\/p>\n
                      follow that the HUF falls under the category<\/p>\n
                      of a family not hitherto assessed and<\/p>\n
                      consequently it must be held that the section<\/p>\n
                      has no application. If the point of time at<\/p>\n
                      which it has to be determined whether the<\/p>\n
                      HUF has been hitherto assessed or not is to<\/p>\n
                      be taken with reference to any other date,<\/p>\n
                      for instance the date on which assessments<\/p>\n
                      were made for the earlier years as in this<\/p>\n
                      case, it would be open to the Assessing<\/p>\n
                      Officer to keep the assessment proceedings<\/p>\n
                      for the year under appeal (in which the issue<\/p>\n
                      arises) pending, issue notices of assessment<\/p>\n
                      or reassessment for earlier assessment years<\/p>\n
                      and complete them either under Section 143<\/p>\n
                      (3) or Section 144 and then take the stand<\/p>\n
                      that since the HUF has already been<\/p>\n
                      assessed, the provisions of Section 171 are<\/p>\n
                      applicable to the assessment for the year<\/p>\n
                      under consideration.     It would thus be<\/p>\n
                      possible to defeat the claim of the assessee<\/p>\n
                      in every case. Since such a situation cannot<\/p>\n
                      be countenanced, it must follow that in
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                           [5]<\/p>\n
                                order that Section 171 is invoked an<\/p>\n
                                assessment upon the HUF ought to have<\/p>\n
                                been made before the date of partial<\/p>\n
                                partition.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
3.           We have heard learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
4.           At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee brought to our<\/p>\n
notice a judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 20.1.2009 in ITA<\/p>\n
No. 30 of 2006 (M\/s Tarlochan Singh v. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n
and another) holding that the expression “hitherto” occurring in Section<\/p>\n
171(9) of the Act would mean that assessment should not have taken place<\/p>\n
as HUF before the date of partial partition. He submitted that in the<\/p>\n
present case no assessment had taken place prior to the date of partial<\/p>\n
partition.\n<\/p>\n
5.           Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that the judgment<\/p>\n
relied upon is distinguishable in its application to the present case. In the<\/p>\n
present case, as is clear from the order of assessment, the status of the<\/p>\n
assessee was HUF for the earlier years from assessment years 1994-95 to<\/p>\n
1998-99. The assessment of the said years was completed on 28.9.2000.<\/p>\n
Though the said date was after partial partition, the same related to period<\/p>\n
prior to partial partition. Once assessee was assessed as HUF, the said<\/p>\n
status continued. In M\/s Tarlochan Singh (supra) the assessee had not<\/p>\n
been assessed for any period prior to partial partition.<\/p>\n
6.           Learned counsel for the revenue refers to judgment of
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                           [6]<\/p>\n
Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gyan Chand<\/p>\n
and Sons<\/a> [2008] 303 ITR 267 wherein the assessee had been assessed in<\/p>\n
the capacity of HUF after the date of partition but for earlier period. Partial<\/p>\n
partition in that case had taken place on October 20, 1979 and the<\/p>\n
assessment of the assessee in the status of HUF took place in October, 1982<\/p>\n
for the earlier assessment year i.e. 1978-79 and 1979-80. It was held that<\/p>\n
even though the assessment had taken place after partition, the same could<\/p>\n
be relied upon to deny the claim of partial partition, as the assessment will<\/p>\n
be relatable of the assessment year for which the assessment was made even<\/p>\n
if the assessment was after the date of partition. Relevant observations are<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
                                “From a joint reading of sub-sections (1)<\/p>\n
                                and (9) of Section 171, the intention of the<\/p>\n
                                legislature appears to be that once an HUF<\/p>\n
                                has been assessed as HUF shall continue to<\/p>\n
                                be assessed so unless the order recognizing<\/p>\n
                                the partition    is passed by the authority<\/p>\n
                                concerned. The assessment order passed is<\/p>\n
                                relatable to the assessment year involved<\/p>\n
                                therein and it will be treated to have been<\/p>\n
                                passed on the last date of assessment year,<\/p>\n
                                for the purposes of Section 171 of the Act.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
7.           Learned counsel for the assessee on the other hand, submitted
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                             [7]<\/p>\n
that the assessment of assessee as HUF must be prior to the date of<\/p>\n
partition. In the present case, the assessment of the assessee as HUF took<\/p>\n
place for the first time on 28.9.2000 while partition had taken place on<\/p>\n
18.6.1998. Thus, the assessment of the assessee was not prior to the date of<\/p>\n
partition. The words “hitherto” in Section 171(9) are referable to the<\/p>\n
assessment taking place prior to partition.       He also submitted that even<\/p>\n
notice for assessment for assessment years 1994-95 to 1998-99 was issued<\/p>\n
for the first time after the date of partition i.e. in October 1998.<\/p>\n
8.           We find merit in the contention raised on behalf of revenue.<\/p>\n
We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Allahabad High<\/p>\n
Court in Gyan Chand case (supra). The object of inserting clause (9) in<\/p>\n
Section 171 by Finance Act in pursuance of Finance Bill No.2 of 1980 was<\/p>\n
to do away with the concept of partial partition after December 31, 1978.<\/p>\n
While considering the validity and background of this provision, the<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. M.V.Valliappan<\/p>\n
and others<\/a> [1999] 238 I.T.R.1027 observed:\n<\/p>\n
                                 “From the aforesaid section, it is clear that<\/p>\n
                                 for the purposes of income tax, the concept<\/p>\n
                                 of partial partition of the Hindu undivided<\/p>\n
                                 family was recognized, but is done away<\/p>\n
                                 with by the amendment which specifically<\/p>\n
                                 provides that where a partial partition has<\/p>\n
                                 taken place after December 31, 1978, no
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                [8]<\/p>\n
                      claim of such partial partition having taken<\/p>\n
                      place shall be inquired into under sub-<\/p>\n
                      section (2) and no finding shall be recorded<\/p>\n
                      under sub-section (3) that such partial<\/p>\n
                      partition has taken place. If any such finding<\/p>\n
                      is recorded under sub-section (3) whether<\/p>\n
                      before or after June 18, 1980, being the date<\/p>\n
                      of introduction of the Finance (No.2) Bill,<\/p>\n
                      1980, the same shall be null and void . The<\/p>\n
                      effect of the aforesaid sub-section is that for<\/p>\n
                      the purposes of income-tax partial partitions<\/p>\n
                      taking place on or after January 1, 1979, are<\/p>\n
                      not to be recognized. If a partial partition<\/p>\n
                      has taken place after the cut-off date no<\/p>\n
                      inquiry as contemplated under sub-section<\/p>\n
                      (2) by the Income-tax Officer shall be held.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                      Even if the inquiry is completed and the<\/p>\n
                      finding is given, it would be treated as null<\/p>\n
                      and void. In this view of the matter, the<\/p>\n
                      contention raised in some of the petitions by<\/p>\n
                      learned counsel for the respondents that<\/p>\n
                      partial partition took place on April 13,<\/p>\n
                      1979, and that in the assessment year it was<\/p>\n
                      recognized and benefit was given to the
\n ITA No. 444 of 2008                                            [9]<\/p>\n
                                 assessee, has no significance in view of the<\/p>\n
                                 crystal clear language used in the sub-\n<\/p>\n
                                 section that partial partition taking place<\/p>\n
                                 after the cut-off date is not to be inquired<\/p>\n
                                 into and if inquired the findings would be<\/p>\n
                                 null and void. Such a family is to be<\/p>\n
                                 assessed under the Act as if no partial<\/p>\n
                                 partition has taken place.”\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
9.           Having regard to the above observation, it is clear that partial<\/p>\n
partition taking place after 1.1.1979, cannot be recognized in respect of an<\/p>\n
assessee already assessed in the status of HUF, for the period prior to<\/p>\n
partition. Mere fact that assessment actually takes place on a date after the<\/p>\n
partition will not affect this position.\n<\/p>\n
10.          In the present case, the assessee having already been assessed<\/p>\n
in HUF status for the period prior to partition, had to be assessed in that<\/p>\n
status ignoring partial partition. The judgment of this Court relied upon in<\/p>\n
M\/s Tirlochan Singh (supra) is distinguishable.<\/p>\n
11.          Accordingly, the substantial question of law whether partial<\/p>\n
partition could be recognized when assessee had already been assessed in<\/p>\n
the status of HUF for the period prior to the partition even if date of<\/p>\n
assessment was later to the date of partition has to be answered in favour<\/p>\n
of the revenue and against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
 ITA No. 444 of 2008                                                         [10]<\/p>\n
12.             Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that as a result of<\/p>\n
protective assessment, the asseee had also been assessed in individual<\/p>\n
capacity. We need not go into this question at this stage. Scope of this<\/p>\n
appeal is limited to decision of above question. The Tribunal can take care<\/p>\n
of other questions in the light of finding recorded above.<\/p>\n
13.             Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh decision in<\/p>\n
accordance with law. The parties may appear before the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
3.12.2009 for further proceedings.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                                   (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)\n                                                          JUDGE\n\n\n\n                                                     (DAYA CHAUDHARY)\nAugust 18, 2009                                            JUDGE\nraghav\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
Note: Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter? ……..Yes\/No\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 444 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.8.2009 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Faridabad ……Appellant Vs. Shri Khacheru (HUF), Ward-2, Ahirwara,Ballabgarh. …Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-194151","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1825,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009"},"wordCount":1825,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009","name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-04T23:56:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-khacheru-huf-on-18-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Shri Khacheru (Huf) on 18 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194151\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}