<?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>1976 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38458</link>
    <description>A widow who was a coparcener&#039;s limited owner under the Hindu Women&#039;s Rights to Property Act, 1937, was treated as having the same interest her husband would have taken on a notional partition. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enlarged property possessed by a female Hindu into full ownership. Applying notional partition principles, the Court held that the deceased widow&#039;s share was one-half of the Hindu undivided family property, that the share formed part of her estate on death, and that it was liable to estate duty. The mother of the deceased coparcener was held to have only a maintenance right and no partition share.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:21:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=77004" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38458</link>
      <description>A widow who was a coparcener&#039;s limited owner under the Hindu Women&#039;s Rights to Property Act, 1937, was treated as having the same interest her husband would have taken on a notional partition. Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 enlarged property possessed by a female Hindu into full ownership. Applying notional partition principles, the Court held that the deceased widow&#039;s share was one-half of the Hindu undivided family property, that the share formed part of her estate on death, and that it was liable to estate duty. The mother of the deceased coparcener was held to have only a maintenance right and no partition share.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=38458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>