Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
Mutual fund maturity rules require proper rollover, redemption, disclosure, and due diligence; investor gains cannot excuse regulatory breaches or pen...
Threshold exemption excludes exempt services, while stamp-paper purchases avoid reverse charge; consequential service tax penalties were also set asid...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
