Hotchpot - Judgment Search Results
N. Subramania Iyer Vs. the Official Receiver, Quilon
Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided on: May-24-1957
Reported in: AIR1958SC1; [1958]1SCR257
sharing the common intention, the transaction must be annulled and the assets must be brought into the common hotchpot for the benefit of the insolvent's creditors. 12. Though the learned District Judge held that only Rs. 20,000
Dr. H.N. Mehrotra Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-01-2005
Reported in: [2005]276ITR158(All)
be taken to be determinative of the intention of the assessee to throw the property into the common hotchpot. The courts have held that in order that the blending of self-acquired property with the Hindu undivided family
Rajamani Bahinipati and ors. Vs. State of Orissa and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Apr-15-2008
Reported in: (2008)106CALLT40(NULL)
would be brought into the fold of 'family' and land held by him would be put into the hotchpot for determining the ceiling in the hands of his father or mother who may be living. Such a
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Controller of Estate Duty Vs. Satyajit
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2001
Reported in: (2001)169CTR(Del)461; [2001]250ITR80(Delhi)
referred to as 'the Assistant Controller') was of the view that a property, which was thrown into the hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family (in short 'the HUF') on March 31, 1973, and subsequently allocated to six
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.T. Balakrishnan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-18-1998
Reported in: (1998)148CTR(Mad)618
23rd July, 1959 between himself and his brother Audimuthu and he threw the said properties to the family hotchpotch consisting of his sons Bose and Sivaprakash, his wife, Bagyalakshmi and his unmarried daughter, Kumari B. Chandra. Similarly,
Late T. Govindaswamy by Lrs Vs. Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Mar-17-1998
Reported in: (1999)63TTJ(Mad)396
paper book. On 14th June, 1967 a sum of Rs. 10,000 in cash was thrown to the common hotchpot of the HUF through a declaration, a photocopy of which is placed at pp. 36 and 37 of
Suman Balkrishna Zodage Vs. Alaka Suresh Zodge and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2008
Reported in: 2008(4)ALLMR483; 2008(5)BomCR699
law were framed.i. Whether the suit is maintainable without adding or joining all the properties into the common hotchpot ?ii. Whether the court below was correct in holding that the flour mill situated on the ground floor
Krushna Prasad Misra and ors. Vs. Panchanan Misra and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Sep-30-1996
Reported in: AIR1997Ori120; 1997(I)OLR285
present suit. It has been alleged in the plaint that the aforesaid property was not included in the hotchpot on the ground those properties were gifted by Upendra in favor of present defendants 3 to 6, sons
K.V. Iyer Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Nov-10-1994
Reported in: (1995)129CTR(Mad)397; [1995]215ITR461(Mad)
contention of the assessee that any separate property of a male Hindu can be validly thrown in the hotchpotch of the joint family, in the instant case, the Hindu undivided family, consisting of husband, his wife and
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. A.M. Vaiyapuri Chettiar and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-05-1995
Reported in: [1995]215ITR836(Mad)
because some of the reunited coparceners had not thrown their properties got from the partition into the family hotchpot, in view of the reservation to that effect contained in the agreement as that was not a precondition
Hover bars for counts · use +/− or drag to zoom · click a bar to filter by year
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free