Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the one-third share of the deceased coparcener in the HUF property could be assessed as HUF property or jointly in the hands of all legal heirs, or whether it devolved on the Class I heirs in their individual capacity and could not be subjected to a joint assessment.
Analysis: On the death of a coparcener, his undivided interest devolves according to the scheme of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and where succession operates under the proviso, the interest passes by intestate succession under section 8 of that Act. The Court applied the principle of notional partition to ascertain the deceased's share and followed the settled view that property inherited under section 8 does not retain the character of HUF property in the hands of the heirs. Since the heirs' shares were definite and vested immediately on death, there was no basis for treating the inherited one-third share as joint HUF property or for framing one composite assessment against all heirs.
Conclusion: The joint assessment made on the legal heirs was improper, and the assessee succeeded on the substantive tax issue.
Ratio Decidendi: Property devolving on Class I heirs under section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, after the death of a coparcener does not constitute HUF property in the hands of the heirs, and their separate and definite shares cannot be assessed jointly as one HUF unit.