<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1998 (11) TMI 112 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16358</link>
    <description>Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act creates only a notional partition to determine the deceased coparcener&#039;s share on succession; it does not, by itself, effect a complete partition or disrupt the Hindu undivided family. For wealth-tax purposes, the deceased&#039;s interest cannot continue to be treated as wholly belonging to the family once it vests in heirs, but exclusion from the family&#039;s net wealth depends on establishing the statutory conditions for succession and the respective ownership interests. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to treat death alone as causing total partition, and it was also not justified in excluding the deceased&#039;s share without first recording the facts needed for section 6 to apply.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 12:18:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55358" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (11) TMI 112 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16358</link>
      <description>Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act creates only a notional partition to determine the deceased coparcener&#039;s share on succession; it does not, by itself, effect a complete partition or disrupt the Hindu undivided family. For wealth-tax purposes, the deceased&#039;s interest cannot continue to be treated as wholly belonging to the family once it vests in heirs, but exclusion from the family&#039;s net wealth depends on establishing the statutory conditions for succession and the respective ownership interests. The Tribunal was therefore wrong to treat death alone as causing total partition, and it was also not justified in excluding the deceased&#039;s share without first recording the facts needed for section 6 to apply.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16358</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>