Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan based on your content:
🔹 Facts
A Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) originally consisted of:
- Father, mother, son (assessee), and son’s wife
After the father’s death (1929):
- Only one male member (son) remained, along with female members
The son inherited ancestral property by survivorship
The issue arose whether the income from this property:
- Should be taxed as individual income, or
- As HUF income (thus avoiding super-tax under Section 55, Income-tax Act, 1922)
🔹 Issues
- Whether income received by the sole surviving male member is individual or HUF income
- Whether super-tax is applicable
- Difference between HUF and coparcenary
🔹 Held (Judgment)
The Bombay High Court held:
- The HUF continues even with one male member and female members
- Income received by survivorship is HUF income, not individual income
- Therefore, super-tax is not applicable
🔹 Key Legal Principles
HUF ≠Coparcenary:
- Coparcenary may reduce to one member
- But HUF continues as a family unit
A single male + female members = valid HUF
Income from ancestral property remains HUF income
Prevents incorrect classification of HUF income as individual income
🔹 Outcome
- Income taxed as HUF income
- Super-tax liability removed
🔹 Importance
Landmark case establishing:
Continuity of HUF despite one male member
Basis for later rulings like:
- Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sarwan Kumar
Important for taxation + Hindu family law exams
🔹 One-Line Revision
👉 A Hindu Undivided Family does not cease to exist merely because only one male member remains; income from ancestral property remains HUF income.
