HON’BLE SUPREME COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED NOTE
Charandas Haridas and Another v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Another
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1957
[1960] 3 SCR 296 ·
Indian Income-tax Act, 1922: section 66(2); HUF income and partial partition
Sources & disclosures includedDownload original judgment / order
3-judge bench · S. K. Das · J. L. Kapur · M. Hidayatullah
Assessment years: 1947-48, 1948-49
01 · Facts of the case
Two family kartas claimed that genuine partial partitions of managing-agency partnership interests ended assessment of the related commission as HUF income. The Tribunal and High Court treated the arrangement as division of receipts without division of the income-producing asset.
Source: Primary report: SCR 297–301
02 · Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
Partnership law governed the karta’s position vis-à-vis other partners, while Hindu law governed beneficial family interests. A partition could divide the family interest without admitting family members as partners or changing the partnership agreements; physical division was not required for this kind of asset.
Source: Primary report: SCR 301–304
03 · Judicial decision
The genuine arrangement effectively divided these assets and the resulting income. There was no material justifying continued assessment of that commission as HUF income.
Source: Primary report: SCR 303–304
04 · Outcome / in whose favour
The assessees’ appeal was allowed; respondents were to pay costs here and below, with one set in the Supreme Court.
Source: Primary report: SCR 304
05 · AKHB REVIEW POINT
Distinguish a division of an income-producing beneficial interest from mere application of income after accrual. This historical partial-partition decision must not be presented as resolving recognition of partial partitions under subsequent tax legislation.
Source: Primary report: SCR 302–304
Source & verification
Download original judgment / order · Open cited source rendition
Complete 9-page Supreme Court Reports scan. Any adjoining report fragments remain in the unchanged original and are excluded from this analysis.
Statutory scope
Historical legislation expressly identified in this note. This is not a decision under the Income-tax Act, 1961 or the Income-tax Act, 2025. Verify enacted wording, commencement, transition and subsequent judicial treatment independently before modern reliance.
Later treatment
Source checked 2026-10-23. Subsequent treatment and present-law applicability have not been comprehensively checked.
Page references identify the supplied PDF; paragraph references identify the judgment unless stated otherwise.
AI disclosure & professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note uses AI assistance and a preserved full-primary review, with refreshed exact original-byte verification. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. AKHB REVIEW POINT is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding.