The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh held that merely claiming funds belong to a Hindu Undivided Family is insufficient without documentary proof of their source, holding, and transfer, in a case involving Rs 50 lakh life insurance purchased from alleged agricultural income.
The Bombay High Court held that a Karta can be personally proceeded against to satisfy an arbitral award where HUF assets are insufficient, and clarified that the court at the seat of arbitration retains execution jurisdiction even if assets lie outside its territorial limits.
Supreme Court reaffirms that the Karta of a HUF has wide discretion to sell joint family property for legal necessities, protecting property rights and ensuring bona fide transactions.
