THE LANDMARK DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF HUF ARE AS FOLLOWS: (i) Krishna Prasad v. CIT, 97 ITR...
THE LANDMARK DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT OF HUF ARE AS FOLLOWS:
(i) Krishna Prasad v. CIT, 97 ITR 493 (SC)
On partition between father and sons, the shares which sons obtained on partition of the HUF with their father, is the ancestral property. As regards his male issues who take interest in the said property on birth. Therefore one of the sons who were not married at the time of partition will receive the property as his HUF property; however income therefrom will be taxed as the HUF income from the date of his marriage.
(ii) A.G. v. A.R. Arunachalam Chettiar, 34 ITR 421 (PC)
A Mitakshara joint family consisted of father and son. On death of a son the father and the widow of the son constitute the HUF.
(iii) Gowli Buddanna v. CIT, 60 ITR 293 (SC)
A Joint family may consist of a single male member with his wife and daughter/ s and it is not necessary that there should be two male members to constitute a joint family.
(iv) N.V. Narendranath v. CWT, 74 ITR 190 (SC)
The property received by a coparcener on partition of the HUF is the HUF property in his hands vis-à-vis the members of his branch i.e. with his wife and a daughter.
(v) L. Hirday Narain v. ITO, 78 ITR 26 (SC)
After the partition between the father and his sons, the father and his wife constitute a Hindu Undivided Family which gets enlarged on the birth of a son.
(vi) CIT v. Veerappa Chettiar, 76 ITR 467 (SC)
Even when a joint family is reduced to female members only it continues to be a HUF.
(vii) CIT v. Sandhya Rani Dutta, 248 ITR 201 (SC)
Female members cannot create or form an HUF by their acts even under the Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law.
(viii) Pushpa Devi v. CIT, 109 ITR 730 (SC)
The right to blend the self-acquired property with HUF property is restricted to a coparcener ( male member of HUF ) and not available to a female member. However, there is no restriction on a female member gifting her property to the HUF of her son.
(ix) Surjit Lal Chhabda v. CIT, 101 ITR 776 (SC)
The property which was thrown into the common hotchpot was not an asset of a pre-existing joint family of which the assessee was a member. It became an item of joint family property for the first time when the assessee threw what was his separate property into the common family hotchpot. Therefore, the property may change its legal incidence on the birth of the son, but until that event happens, the property, in the eye of Hindu Law, is really the property of the assessee.