HUF Formation
This query is : Resolved
18 June 2008
Whether HUF can be formed by Couple having no childrens?
18 June 2008
Whether only one male member is suffice to form an HUF is now legally well settled as per decision of Supreme Court in case of Gowli Buddana vs CIT (1966) 60 ITR 293 . An HUF is no different than a joint property. The concept of HUF is very simple codified in Hindu law .A Hindu joint family consists of lineally descended persons -like Great Grand father, Grand father ,father,uncle,son etc.All these persons have right over common ancestral property by birth. The dictum that once Hindu undivided family always Hindu undivided family" has been accepted all along .
The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Income-tax Act is same as a joint family which may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. In Dr Prakash B Sultane v CIT ([2005] 148 Taxman 353) the Bombay High Court held that that the property does not lose its character merely because at one point of time there was only one male member or one co-parcener.
In this case , the assessee was a doctor by profession assessable in his hands as an individual. The assessee was a member of a bigger Hindu undivided family which was partitioned on January 1, 1972. At the time of partition and right upto January 22, 1980 the assessee was a bachelor. During these years, the income from assets on partition was assessed in his hands as his individual income.
When the assessee got married on January 22, 1980, he claimed that the income from assets received on partition is assessable in status of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife.
The Assessing Officer observed that the decisions referred to by the assessee were considered in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya (142 I.T.R. 357). Relying upon this judgment, he rejected the application of the assessee and continued to assess his income from the Hindu undivided family property in his individual capacity. In the above case also, the assessee had obtained his share on partition before his marriage and, on his marriage, had claimed the status of Hindu undivided family. His claim was rejected on the ground that "until a son is born the status of the assessee would continue to be that of an individual.
However, the High Court ruled otherwise and upheld the contention of the assessee that once HUF property always HUF property
"
The expression 'Hindu undivided family' in the Income-tax Act is same as a joint family which may consist of a single male member and widows of deceased male members. In Dr Prakash B Sultane v CIT ([2005] 148 Taxman 353) the Bombay High Court held that that the property does not lose its character merely because at one point of time there was only one male member or one co-parcener.
In this case , the assessee was a doctor by profession assessable in his hands as an individual. The assessee was a member of a bigger Hindu undivided family which was partitioned on January 1, 1972. At the time of partition and right upto January 22, 1980 the assessee was a bachelor. During these years, the income from assets on partition was assessed in his hands as his individual income.
When the assessee got married on January 22, 1980, he claimed that the income from assets received on partition is assessable in status of the Hindu undivided family consisting of himself and his wife.
The Assessing Officer observed that the decisions referred to by the assessee were considered in the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Vishnukumar Bhaiya (142 I.T.R. 357). Relying upon this judgment, he rejected the application of the assessee and continued to assess his income from the Hindu undivided family property in his individual capacity. In the above case also, the assessee had obtained his share on partition before his marriage and, on his marriage, had claimed the status of Hindu undivided family. His claim was rejected on the ground that "until a son is born the status of the assessee would continue to be that of an individual.
However, the High Court ruled otherwise and upheld the contention of the assessee that once HUF property always HUF property
"
18 June 2008
Can anyone help me I 've posted one query bt can't know frm where to check its reply
18 June 2008
Some decisions are favouring the assessee that,a male can form the Huf.
Now Hindu succession Act also amended that,a lady can claim partition in huf property.Hence it could be possible to form the huf by a single male member with his wife
Now Hindu succession Act also amended that,a lady can claim partition in huf property.Hence it could be possible to form the huf by a single male member with his wife
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- REGARDING GST ON COMMERICIAL PROPERTY
- Is this income indian or foreign income?
- 15ca /15cb whose income tax login? remitter or nri seller's login?
- GST on export of services and Input Credit
- Regarding Documentation & Compliances for Opening of Unit of Pvt Ltd.
- TDS U/S. 194NF
- ITC temporary reversal and reclaim
- RCM applicability on Rent Paid by Registered Person to Unregistered Landlord for Residental Building
- Applicable TDS rate for sale of property in Nov 2024
- Donation Receipt u/s 80G
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- VERIFICATION OF REFUND RELATED
- GST Regis.
- ITC c/f from FY2022-23 to FY2023-24 entered the same in table 8C of GSTR9 of FY 2022-23, in FY23-24
- Late filling fees Demand by gst office
- IGST Credit-Show cause notice issued-confusion
- Short and Excess provision of expenses
- Issue of gst e invoice
- Interchangeable words in accounts
- Adjusted profit/Loss in the case of LLP and Pvt. Ltd.company
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
