Pre-existing operational debt disputes require genuine evidence, while undirected running-account payments may be appropriated on a first-in-first-out...
Agency in CNG distribution makes outlet operators commission agents, rendering taxable Business Auxiliary Service rather than purchasing goods for res...
Composite inpatient healthcare supply may retain exemption despite MRP medicine billing, while separate taxable sale characterisation remains disputed...
Working-capital adjustment determines whether software-services transfer-pricing margins fall within the statutory tolerance range, eliminating any ad...
Page of 4798
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
921 to 940 of 95957 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC held that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (State Act) is repugnant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Central Act) under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The State Act's provisions, which abolish coparcenary rights and deny daughters a birthright in joint family property, conflict irreconcilably with the Central Act, which recognizes daughters as coparceners by birth and restricts modes of partition to registered documents or court decrees. The Court overruled prior Kerala HC decisions that upheld the State Act's validity, emphasizing the binding Supreme Court precedent affirming daughters' coparcenary rights. Consequently, the Central Act prevails, granting female members equal succession rights in joint family property despite the State Act's contrary provisions. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, affirming that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth and the State Act cannot negate this entitlement.
The HC held that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 (State Act) is repugnant to the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Central Act) under Article 254(1) of the Constitution. The State Act's provisions, which abolish coparcenary rights and deny daughters a birthright in joint family property, conflict irreconcilably with the Central Act, which recognizes daughters as coparceners by birth and restricts modes of partition to registered documents or court decrees. The Court overruled prior Kerala HC decisions that upheld the State Act's validity, emphasizing the binding Supreme Court precedent affirming daughters' coparcenary rights. Consequently, the Central Act prevails, granting female members equal succession rights in joint family property despite the State Act's contrary provisions. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the appellants, affirming that daughters acquire coparcenary rights by birth and the State Act cannot negate this entitlement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
