| |
|
|
Ans: HUF includes those persons who acquired by birth an interest in joint family property.
Ans: Yes. A family consists of all persons lineally descended from a common ancestor and include their wives and unmarried daughters.
Ans: No HUF arises only from status.
Ans: The persons who acquire by birth and interest in joint family property. The test of Coparcener is that coparcener enjoys right to enforce partition.
Ans: Daaya bhaga: It prevails only in west Bengal & Assam. Here a son acquires right in the family property not on his birth but on the death of his father.
Mitaaakshara: Under the school of law each son by birth acquires an equal interest with his father in the ancestral property. This law prevalent all over India.
Ans: Female members do not enjoy right to enforce partition, through they are entitled to maintenance out of the family property.
Ans: It is the property, which a man inherits from any of his three immediate male ancestors , i.e., father , grand father and great grand father.
Ans: There need not be necessarily more than one male member to form a HUF along with female members.
Ans: Yes. CIT v. Smt. Champa Kumari Singhi(1972)83 ITR 293(SC).
A son can have smaller HUF with his wife and children, while he continues to be a member of his father's HUF. In his father's HUF, he is mere a member, and his own, he is a karta.
Women members are not treated as coparcener of HUF.
A daughter after her marriage has no right at all in assets of HUF.
After the death of karta, if there is no male member, the wife of karta not becomes a karta.
If a Karta dies, leaving behind his widow and minor son, even then, wife is not permitted to become a karta.
Yes. As so long as the property which was originally of the joint Hindu family remains in the hands of the widows of the member of the family and is not divided, HUF can continue with female members.
There should be a coparcener.
There should be a joint family property which consists of ancestral property, property acquired with the aid of ancestral property and property transferred by its members.
Even after death, so long as the property which was originally of HUF remains in the hands of widows and is not divided among them, the joint family continues.
So long as HUF exists, individual members cannot be separately assessed in respect of HUF's income. ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor (1966) 60 ITR 74 (SC).
Gift by Karta of HUF, a movable property or an immovable property within reasonable limits in favour of his daughter is permissible on the occasion of her marriage.
Yes. Hans Raj Agarwal (2003) 259 ITR 265/126 Taxman 603 (SC).
Yes, it is his duty to know the exact portions of the division among the members and to hold an inquiry into the claim. Lakmichand Bajinath v. CIT (1959) 35 ITR 416 (SC).
The partition is not valid and the HUF is assessable to the tax as such, unless the finding is recorded by the AO by an order under section 171. Addl CIT v. Maharani Raj Laxmi Devi (1997) 224 ITR 582/91 Taxman 20 (SC).
Where the assessees having life, but no child got certain property on partition of bigger HUF, it was held that assessee's claim for HUF status (smaller HUF) was valid. CIT Krishna kumar (1982) 10 Taxman 292 (MP).
The property will belong to him as his separate property and he could validly gift it to his wife and daughters. CIT v. Admiralty Flats Motel (1982) 133 ITR 895 (MAD).
Unless the remuneration has direct nexus with investment of funds of the family, it will be treated as personal income of Karta. Laxman Das v. CIT (1982) 138 ITR 628/(1983) 12 Taxman 58 (all).
It is his individual income, unless it is the part of the return on investment of HUF. CIT v. Trilok Nath Mahrotra (1998) 98 Taxman 462 (SC).
The property is assessable as individual property of assessee even though in subsequent partition of HUF such property is treated as HUF property. CIT v. CG. Venkatasubben (1999) 150 Taxman 352 (Mad).
Yes. Provided it is genuine and not excessive and under a valid bona fide agreement. Jugal Kishore Baleo v. CIT (1967) 63 ITR 238 (SC).
Yes. CIT v. Prakash Chand Agarwal (1982) 11 Taxman 55 (MP).
All coparceners.
A son in the womb of his mother at the time of partition.
Mother.
Wife.
No. CIT v. Kantilal Ambalal (1991) 59 Taxman 232 (Guj).
Partial partition is not recognized under Income Tax Act as per section 171(9).
No it can do so only through its Karta. CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC).
As the widow is not coparcener, she has no legal qualification to become a Karta. CIT v. Seth Govindram Sugar Mills (1965) 57 ITR 510 (SC).
The right of blending is limited to coparcener. Pushpa Devi V. CIT (1997) 109 ITR 730 (SC).
Yes. There is no requirement like that, in HUF, there must be at least two male members. N.V. Narendranath v. CWT (1969) 74 ITR 190 (SC).
No, a gift cannot help in forming or creating a HUF. It may only provide the nucleus of the properties to an already existing HUF, which may not be having any joint family property or fund.
The HUF should have two or more coparceners to treat Mr. C's gift as HUF property. Hence in this case it is not possible as A is the only coparcener. (Section 400 of Mulla's Hindu Law)
The father can effect only a total partition in respect of all the properties. He does not have right to effect partial partition. CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) [1979] 116 ITR 577 (MP]
Yes, whereas any other coparcener can achieve this result only by a suit. CIT v. Seth Gopaldas (HUF) [1979] 116 ITR 577 (MP]
Only a coparcener can be a manager. Any other senior male member can also manage the affairs. But if the father is incapable and son is minor, mother may represent the family for Income Tax Assessment. Sushiladevi Rampuriya v. ITO [1960] 38 ITR 316 (Cal).
Not possible. The concept of female forming a joint Hindu family agreement appears to be contrary to Hindu law. CIT v. Smt. Sandhya Rani Dutta [2001] 115 Taxman 369 (SC).
The daughter on her marriage ceases to be a member of her father's HUF and becomes a member of her husband's HUF.
No. Birth of male only makes a coparcener. Adopter child can become a member.
Yes. Surjitlal Chhabara v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC)
Yes. It is applicable to Dayabhaga and Mitakshara school of Hindu law. Joint family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 416 (SC)
It can be done through book entries. K.G. Ramakrishnirer v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 608 (Mad)
No. CIT v. Govind Narain [1975] 101 ITR 602 (All)
It can be made before the assessment. Rajmal Paharachand v. CIT [1950] 18 ITR 1 (Punj)
Till minority, the income will be clubbed with his father's. Income is to be offered in his individual assessment. After marriage, he can claim status of HUF with himself & wife. He becomes Karta. CIT v. Parshottamdas K. Panchal [2002] 257 ITR 96 / [2003] 123 Taxman 563 (Guj).
Yes. Provided there is clear declaration that the gift is for the benefit of HUF. CIT v. Satyendra Kumar [1998] 232 ITR 360 (SC).
Insurance compensation is an individual asset and not that of HUF. The interest on this deposit amount is not assessable in the hands of HUF but in the hands of sons. L Bansi Dhar & Sons v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 58 / 4 Taxman 176 (Delhi).
|
|
|
|
|