Charitable trust registration requires a specified-violation notice; settled cash deposits and related-party payments did not justify cancellation or ...
External development charges trigger TDS under section 194C, while disputed administrative payments require factual verification and fresh adjudicatio...
Section 270AA penalty immunity requires identified statutory defaults and a hearing before rejection; reassessment disclosure may constitute under-rep...
Section 80JJAA employee-cost deduction allowed for deployed staff but barred against transfer-pricing income enhancement, with pricing issues remanded...
Transfer-pricing methodology protects commercially genuine associated-enterprise payments, while pre-2016 secondary adjustments and related notional i...
Negative liens over operating assets can constitute international transactions requiring arm's-length pricing reflecting restricted borrowing and expa...
Cross-examination rights in Customs Broker revocation inquiries require witness examination; procedural denial may be cured through fresh adjudication...
The HC rejected a second appeal filed by grandchildren seeking partition and cancellation of sale deed of their grandfather's property inherited by their father post-1956. The court held that property inherited after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 constitutes self-acquired property of heirs, not ancestral or coparcenary property. Grandchildren possess no vested rights by birth in such property. The court emphasized that coparcenary property can only be created from pre-1956 ancestral property or through deliberate blending with existing coparcenary assets. Absent proper pleadings establishing joint family character, no presumption exists that property belongs to HUF. The suit disclosed no cause of action as succession was governed by Section 8 of the 1956 Act, and the main relief seeking cancellation was time-barred, rendering consequential reliefs equally barred.
The HC rejected a second appeal filed by grandchildren seeking partition and cancellation of sale deed of their grandfather's property inherited by their father post-1956. The court held that property inherited after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 constitutes self-acquired property of heirs, not ancestral or coparcenary property. Grandchildren possess no vested rights by birth in such property. The court emphasized that coparcenary property can only be created from pre-1956 ancestral property or through deliberate blending with existing coparcenary assets. Absent proper pleadings establishing joint family character, no presumption exists that property belongs to HUF. The suit disclosed no cause of action as succession was governed by Section 8 of the 1956 Act, and the main relief seeking cancellation was time-barred, rendering consequential reliefs equally barred.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
