Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal rules wife's relinquishment deed ends HUF status, lowers wealth-tax rates</h1> The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the assessee, restoring the orders treating the assessee as a non-specified Hindu Undivided Family (HUF). It ... HUF Property, Higher Rate, Rate Applicable Issues Involved:1. Status of the assessee as a specified HUF or non-specified HUF.2. Validity of the relinquishment deed executed by the wife of the karta.3. Legal implications of the wife's relinquishment on her status as a member of the HUF.4. Applicability of higher wealth-tax rates based on the wife's taxable wealth.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Status of the Assessee as a Specified HUF or Non-Specified HUF:The primary issue was whether the assessee should be treated as a specified HUF, which would attract a higher rate of wealth-tax, or as a non-specified HUF. The Wealth-tax Officer (WTO) initially assessed the assessee as a non-specified HUF based on declarations that the members of the HUF did not have taxable wealth for the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. However, the Commissioner later found that the wife of the karta had substantial taxable wealth for these years and concluded that the WTO had erred in not treating the HUF as specified.2. Validity of the Relinquishment Deed Executed by the Wife of the Karta:The assessee argued that the wife of the karta, Smt. Naga Satyavathi, had relinquished her rights in the HUF properties through a deed dated 5-4-1971, thereby ceasing to be a member of the HUF. The Commissioner, however, doubted the validity of this deed, noting that it was not produced before the WTO and questioning whether it had been acted upon. The Commissioner also opined that the wife could not relinquish her status as a member of the HUF through such a deed.3. Legal Implications of the Wife's Relinquishment on Her Status as a Member of the HUF:The Tribunal had to consider whether a wife could relinquish her status as a member of the HUF during her husband's lifetime. It was noted that while a female member could relinquish her interest in the joint family properties, her status as a member of the joint family could not be relinquished through a deed. The Tribunal found that the status of being a wife and a member of the HUF are distinct concepts, and her membership in the HUF could only cease by death or divorce.4. Applicability of Higher Wealth-Tax Rates Based on the Wife's Taxable Wealth:The Tribunal examined whether the wife's taxable wealth should impact the HUF's tax status. The majority opinion, led by the Judicial Member, held that since the wife had executed a valid relinquishment deed, she ceased to have any interest in the HUF properties. Consequently, the HUF should not be treated as a specified HUF for wealth-tax purposes. The dissenting Accountant Member argued that the wife's relinquishment did not affect her status as a member of the HUF and that the higher rate should apply.Separate Judgments:The Judicial Member and the Third Member (President) concluded that the relinquishment deed was valid and that the wife was no longer a member of the HUF for tax purposes. Thus, the HUF should be assessed as a non-specified HUF. The Accountant Member dissented, maintaining that the wife remained a member of the HUF despite the relinquishment, and the higher tax rate should apply.Conclusion:The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the orders passed by the WTO treating the assessee as a non-specified HUF were restored. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and held that the HUF should not be assessed at the higher rate applicable to specified HUFs.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found