https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292657 The court determined that the maintenance received by the petitioner from the ancestral impartible estate constituted a sum received as a member of a Hindu undivided family under Section 14 of the Act. Emphasizing the right to maintenance as an incident of joint family property, the court rejected the argument that the absence of coparcenary negated the existence of an undivided family. Citing previous cases and aligning with a similar decision by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner was deemed to have received the maintenance as a member of the undivided Hindu family. The Chief Justice and Justice Sundaram Chetty concurred, awarding costs and the return of a deposit to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 02 May 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jan 2021 09:57:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292657 The court determined that the maintenance received by the petitioner from the ancestral impartible estate constituted a sum received as a member of a Hindu undivided family under Section 14 of the Act. Emphasizing the right to maintenance as an incident of joint family property, the court rejected the argument that the absence of coparcenary negated the existence of an undivided family. Citing previous cases and aligning with a similar decision by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner was deemed to have received the maintenance as a member of the undivided Hindu family. The Chief Justice and Justice Sundaram Chetty concurred, awarding costs and the return of a deposit to the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 May 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292657