Whether there can death of HUF?

In appeal, the AAC had to consider the objection raised before him that the GTO was not justified in taking the status of an individual as against the status of HUF claimed in the return. According to him, the claim of HUF status was justified. However, he set aside the gift-tax assessment made by the GTO for the purpose of verifying whether the property in question was really ancestral and belonged to the HUF. There was an objection raised with regard to the assessment having been made on a dead person. On this issue, he observed that this contention was of no consequence because he had accepted the claim of the status of HUF and HUF never dies. 

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh

Gift-Tax Officer vs Jagir Singh on 12 March, 1982

Equivalent citations: 1982 2 ITD 576 Chd

Bench: S Chander, F Rustagi

Print Page

Income tax tribunal admitted contents of LinkedIn profiles of employees as additional evidence

Tribunal admits contents of LinkedIn profiles of employees as additional evidence for PE determination of employer (GE )

The issue before the Tribunal was on admission as additional evidence, the information gathered from LinkedIn profiles of certain employees of the GE Group by the Tax Authority for determining whether the concerned GE Group entity, through its offices or through its Indian affiliate i.e. GE India Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (Indian affiliate), constituted Permanent Establishment (PE) in India. 

The Tribunal admitted the evidence on the ground that same has a considerable bearing on facts where the taxpayer has not furnished appropriate details which were sought for. The Tribunal held that these profile details are similar to statements given by a person and, it cannot therefore be said, to be hearsay evidence. Further, the taxpayer is free to refute information contained in the profiles by bringing on record contrary facts to dislodge the claims made by the Tax Authority. The Tribunal, in this interim order, did not conclude on existence of the PE and has fixed the matter for further hearing on merits. 

Print Page